RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Jan
12
2008
El Presidente Jorge Arbusto’s Dept. of “Justice” Argues Against the Second Amendment
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in "Law" of the Land, Nanny Statism, President Weeniedick, RINOs3:23 PM
Can’t fucking WAIT to have the milquetoast RINO liberal asshole out of office.
Go fuck yourself, Arbusto, and let me revise my opinion of the Ditzy Chicks: I, too, am officially embarrassed that you’re a Texan.
You’d make a fine EUropeeon, though, so why don’t you piss off, you gun-grabbing, back-stabbing, lying son of a bitch?
Entries (RSS)
Oh Emperor
Why, pray tell, don’t I like the undertone of this..? And why, why, why are the politicos so anxious to do away with the very soul of your Nation!?!? The Constitution is what makes the United States, well, the United States!
The true reasons for attacking this Most Precious Document are to be found in Orwell’s “1984″ in this canuck’s most humble opinion…
My thougths and hopes are with you, my American friend…
January 12th, 2008 at 3:52 PMUsing
And foist!!!
January 12th, 2008 at 3:53 PMUsing
Sigh… cant say I didnt see it coming.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:31 PMUsing
Until another back-stabbing, gun-grabbing lying SOB gets into office.
Fred’s the only candidate I can think of thus far who has openly supported the Second Amendment . :em96: :em69:
January 12th, 2008 at 5:06 PMUsing
Eccch. No, can’t say I didn’t see this coming either.
BTW, on the comments over at HotAir, we find this tired old saw:
Setting aside the obviously dopey assertion that an AK is somehow more “efficient” than an ‘94 Winchester, isn’t it about time we laid to rest that stupid Hollywood “Wild West” meme?
January 12th, 2008 at 5:13 PMUsing
I have long suspected, my suspicions now confirmed, that Bush is no friend of the second amendment. He seeks an absolute control of a vulner
January 12th, 2008 at 5:39 PMUsing
able populace, just as the hard core left wants. Screw him!!!
January 12th, 2008 at 5:40 PMUsing
It really amazes me that the GFW’s of this country demanding that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the people don’t realize the slippery slope they are stepping on. If the 2nd does not apply….then none of the others do either. NONE. ALL the Bill of Rights then belongs to the Government alone. ALL OF IT.
Either they all apply to the PEOPLE ALONE….or NONE of it applies.
You can’t have it both ways you dumbass nimrods. :em96:
January 12th, 2008 at 6:14 PMUsing
Wrong Answer #1-In “Framing-era” practice, as the amendment is written articulates no restrictions on private ownership.
Wrong Answer #2- Unless my multiple copies of the 2nd all have the identical misprint, I see no mention of ‘requiring heightened scrutiny.’
Wrong Answer #3- Again, unless the typographic errors continue, I’ve yet to find any implication that the right to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed “unless sharp sticks are available” This answer is so egregious as to call for a penalty on the play and loss of down.
Really Wrong Answer #4- The 2nd was specifically written, to prevent the government from being able to construct, devise or otherwise have an interest in the restriction of private ownership. That fellow LCs is a complete 180 degree turn from well established interpretation, that has survived numerous challenges.
Maximum Penalty- forfeiture of game.
I’m not a lawyer, but I can parse that enough to say with 100% certainty-BULLSHIT !!!!
January 12th, 2008 at 6:21 PMUsing
LC JackBoot
Agreed!!! But Bullshit that will cost your citizens their Rights…
This humble Canadian fears for you my friends!
January 12th, 2008 at 6:29 PMUsing
The 2nd A means what is says — words have meaning! This is a tough concept for attorneys to absorb, since it puts a great many of them outta work.
I would even go so far as to contend that conviceted felons who have served their sentences (including completion of parole) should be considered to be full-fledged citizens of this country — including voting rights and the rights to keep and bear arms.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:11 PMUsing
Now, I’m just a dumb black boy from Georgia, so ya’ll have got to help me out on this: Is the DOJ saying that the government views our rights (starting with our right to bear arms) as being “subject to important exceptions”? If so, then fuck waiting until 2009; let’s get the impeachment hearings underway right now!
January 12th, 2008 at 8:39 PMUsing
If we view the Constitution correctly (as in, a “contract” of sorts between the government and the governed) there are only a few ways to regard this. First, the Constitution does nothing more than discuss existing human rights. Second, there is no fine print, exceptions, nuances or disclaimers.
Someone once explained it to me this way. The Framers recognized that those who seek power are usually a particularly dangerous brand of sociopath. (They didn’t have the label but understood the concept perfectly well.) Accordingly, they wrote the Constitution in part to keep these people from interfering from the notions of individual freedom grounded in the Enlightenment and put into place in the Revolution.
The sociopaths have had over 200 years to chip away, mangle and dismiss nearly every aspect of what was once a clearly laid out, universally-understood set of ideas. (Worse, we now live in a society where the rationality and motivation to action that lead to the Enlightenment and the Revolution is little more than a distant, quaint memory.)
This is the latest. Expect far more and worse.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:02 PMUsing
I’m curious what went through Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas minds when they read that. I can’t wait to read the opinion.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:16 PMUsing
Ya’ know what Crunchie…..the kind of disengenuous, deceitful bullshit I read in the brief both concerns and angers me. They have it backwards…the Constitution is more important than the government. The Constitution tells the government what it can and cannot do. The Constitution is not a convenience, it is the life blood of the nation. Soldiers don’t die for the government, although many have died because of the government. We vowed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The second amendment is a safety. I have been silently noting how this administration has quietly encroached on our bill of rights. I do not know what happened to the Bill of Rights, but I believe it is being sorely tested at this point. The RealID fiasco. The government has no business telling me I cannot get on a plane and fly anywhere in this country I choose. Enough is enough, when they quit body cavity searches of dangerous, ninety year old Chinese grandmothers, and start searching more young muslim men, then I will give it some thought. But leave my guns and my friends guns the hell alone!!!!!!!! And like you, my friend, I wish I could have seen the look on Scalia’s face as he read that.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:28 PMUsing
Welcome Nobraner….and you certainly don’t sound dumb to me. Pretty damn smart in fact.
If it keeps Congress too busy to fart in our general direction…I could just about go for an Impeachment trial, but it will take them the rest of W’s term just to work out the freaking seating assignments.
Also…it would put our Soldiers in jeopardy being put into limbo while they are still fighting a war.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:34 PMOther than that…I wouldn’t mind it a bit.
Using
LC HJ Caveman82952
And I think that is exactly why the politicos want to do away with it! As I mentionned at number 1, without the Constitution, the United States as you now know it will cease to exists…
January 12th, 2008 at 9:34 PMUsing
Sounds like a flagrant violation of his oath of office. Every elected official, every enlisted service member, and every commissioned officer takes an oath that begins “I, *Joe Schmuckatelli* do solemnly swear that I will uphole the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Way to uphold your office, Jorge. Now go the fuck away.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:54 PMUsing
The Second Amendment is our ‘reset’ button. There is no way in hell they’ll take this away peacefully.
Wow!
January 12th, 2008 at 10:18 PMUsing
Thanks for the reality check, Mrs M. And thanks for the welcome. I’ve been lurking around the Rott for a good while now, but I haven’t commented that much.
January 12th, 2008 at 10:31 PMUsing
Nobraner
remember most gun laws were originated to keep non-whites unarmed. this is just more elitist :em72: .
January 12th, 2008 at 10:38 PMUsing
All too true. Already, the rights of veterans to purchase a gun are being curtailed as the BATF adds hundreds of names daily to the NICS “prohibited” list, thanks to a law that was passed without a vote from the House or Senate.
The acting director of the BATF is an anti-gun liberal.
We talk about the Second Amendment as being the people’s reset button. The time may be coming soon when that button has to be pressed.
Are you making preperations?
January 12th, 2008 at 10:44 PMUsing
Fuck you Bush and the Burro you rode in on.
First you Suck on Some of Vincte Fox’s Jizz with your Goddamn Amensty plan. Second Like the Idiot that you have been potraied to be you sat on your ass for 6 years and not made the Tax Cuts Permament. Then In a Stroke of Fricking brilliance you went to Dubai Ports to run the nations ports.
Then you say that Isreal should leave All the lands the IDF “Occupies”. Fuck You Bush, if you havent Noticed the Moment the IDF leavs, is the Moment that the Paloswianians will be firing more Rockets into Isreal from those positions.
YouKnow what, Lets just Impeach him and Pray for Fred Thompson to become the Next President, We need a REAL Conserative.
January 12th, 2008 at 11:41 PMUsing
Damn, and I wanted to get a big screen tv for the in-laws with some of the tax money…. guess its time (long past in fact) to start up the armory again. I am almost too pissed off to typo…but there WILL be a post on this at my little bit o fluff sometime tomorrow when I am calmed down enough to think straight. Damn it!!!!
January 12th, 2008 at 11:51 PMUsing
Armory quite well stocked, ammo a bit lower than I’d like, but that’s in the process of revision.
You know my signature block from the Gunthing. “Remember your oath of enlistment? REMEMBER YOUR OATH OF ENLISTMENT!” This sounds as though the “reset button” is about to need pressing.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:11 AMUsing
The Day is coming…either we fight like men or live like sheep.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:10 AMUsing
[...] The Bush Administration has filed a briefing opposing the Second Amendment. [...]
January 13th, 2008 at 9:06 AMUsing
LC Hardclimber54
This most humble German seconds that most strongly.
My friends, the US is indeed on a slippery slope. When the rights of the government are placed above the rights of the citizens, all is lost. One of the many things I learned in school about the 3rd Reich was that the point of no return was not reached with the Ermaechtigungsgesetz , but with the change of oath of the Armed Forces. When the Wehrmacht changed its oath on 20.08.1934 to swear loyalty not the German Reich and its people, but to the Fuehrer, all was lost. From then on, only an early and bloody revolution could have changed anything. It didn’t.
If this view of the Bill of Rights should ever prevail and be transformed into actual legislation and enforcement, the United States as we know and love it (Bloody Hell, I do !!!), would be lost. The individual liberty and with it the very fiber of the nation would be gone.
But I am preaching to the choir here. You know that the 2nd is the reset button, the tool kit of the people for a revolution.
Just one more thing, guys: I know Europe is a lot worse off. We don’t have guns, most of us cannot even use one and the government runs a lot more of our lives than it does in your wonderful country. Hell, many people here cannot even take a crap on their own, not even speaking of running their lives properly. I have sworn to myself and the to gods that if the shit ever hits the fans really badly, I will pack my ruck, take Mrs. Panzermann and our kids, should we at this point in time have some yet) and get over to the states. Not as a refugee, but as an applicant for citizenship. I can drive a tank, I can shoot and I have a day job that is always needed in a free economy. Army or civilian industry, whatever is needed. So, keep it free until I get there and can join the fight.
The USA still is the beacon of the Free World !!!
January 13th, 2008 at 9:38 AMUsing
(Wipes tear)
“These Men”
Such a massive injection of Hope, when you find them among your friends,,
I re-state my desire to personally transport Rottfesters from MCO to The Scene.
The privilege being selfishly mine…
Panzerman?
January 13th, 2008 at 10:44 AMUsing
I’m sure you all remember ‘RED DAWN’ and how the invaders used public records to locate/confiscate the citizenries “legally registered” weapons. It appears that the invaders in this scenario have already got a foothold and are moving to the next stage of their conquest. It’s time for the GFWs and Sheep to wake up and get a clue.
On another note, the only registered weapon I have is my dear sweet grandmother’s .22 target pistol (key word “registered”).
I have also swore to uphold the constitution on several enlistment occasions and understand the nuance of “foreign and domestic”. God help us to help them understand the RESET button safety is off.
Just sayin’
D’
January 13th, 2008 at 11:11 AMUsing
Cheapshot911
Thanks a lot for the invitation. I definitely want to come. But I have to check the issue with the Missus and with the calendar, as the first half of the year is very busy and there are a lot of family occasions already scheduled.
I let you guys know shortly. I will have to order a couple of tanker berets anyhow….
January 13th, 2008 at 11:54 AMUsing
I have been speaking out against Bush for almost 3 years now, ain’t that a funny thing??
For all that time I was soundly castigated FOR that stance, by MANY on this comments thread…
All it took to get to you was his lack of support for the 2nd amendment??
Oh well, whatever it takes…
January 13th, 2008 at 1:31 PMUsing
Since we have a living i.e. dead Consititution, pehaps we should start reinterpreting various other parts of the Constitution according to our convenience. Such as Article III (Courts and definition of treason, etc.). Such as Full Faith and Credit. Such as anything else that could prove momentarily expedient.
January 13th, 2008 at 2:04 PMUsing
From my cold, dead hands motherfucker, from my cold,dead hands.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:13 PMUsing
I can’t believe I used to stick up for that cocksucking, motherfucking asshole-licking piece of shit… :em58:
January 13th, 2008 at 7:18 PMUsing
I share your sentiments, Mo……….felt like I’d been betrayed by a friend. I think I’ll stick to those I call my people, the Rotties, my best friend of forty years, a gun nut like me……….and those of us bothering to own, maintain and shoot guns. This has proven quite a disappointment. I shudder at the thought this guy may be a modern day despot.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:24 PMUsing
Texasfred, I think that the majority of us started rethinking GWB right after the 2006 elections–when the Democrats took control of both houses.
As I recall, the day after the election, Bush held a press conference where he said that the Republicans “took a thumping.” He sounded like a pussified chump–not like the President of the United States. I listened to this conference in the car, and I had to pull the car over because I was screaming at the radio so loudly.
I don’t know about anybody else, but for me, that was when I regretted voting for Bush.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:15 PMUsing
Mo, Nobraner,
I never voted for the Bushwacker either time. The first time I held my nose as I voted against Algore. In ‘04 I voted against Lyin’ John Kerry. That was somewhat easier - I’d have voted for David Duke or Danny Ortega, or even that McCuin cannibal feller before I’d vote for Colostomy-Bag Kerry. :em72: Some things are just personal, beyond politics. :em38:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:29 PMUsing
Rurik, that’s the problem. We don’t have anybody to vote FOR, only scumbags to vote AGAINST.
THAT’S the CHANGE we need…
January 13th, 2008 at 8:52 PMUsing
This brief really came from the ATF.
As I said on The Gun Thing:
I hate to say this, but I expected something like it… call it the ‘complex individual rights interpretation’.
The ATF can see that this is going to go to an individual rights decision. They are worried about how broad that decision may be. If the USSC goes with this amicus brief and says it is an individual right but subject to regulation, then each and every law would be challenged based on whether or not is it a ‘reasonable regulation’. Still, it presents a danger for the DC laws, and laws in places like Chicago (and the complete lack of CCW in WI)- because it can still be incorporated to apply to the states.
Remember, that this Court, Congress and DoJ all believe that even the FIRST amendment (McCain-Feingold, anyone?) and fourth (war on drugs, Patriot Act) are ‘subject to regulation’.
The ATF can see the writing on the wall. They see a broad individual rights decision meaning (eventually) that Joe Sixpack would be allowed to carry a M4 carbine down Pennsylvania Avenue, and they can’t let that happen. There are alot of people who would suddenly get ‘unconstitutional’ appeals on gun charges from regulations that are ‘reasonable’ now that are in all likelihood actually unconstitutional. It would mean very quickly that any CCW policy other than ‘shall issue’ is unconstitutional. It would mean that the law that refuses registration of fully automatic firearms to civilian after 1986 is unconstitutional- and may also mean that the registration of fully automatic firearms is in and of itself unconstitutional. It would mean that the ‘sporting purposes’ language in GCA68 is and always has been unconstitutional and the few remaining Imbel FALs in South America can be imported into the U.S. and sold AS IS, not demilled at all. (and, according to an importer, would sell for about $200) They have to make sure that the damage from this pending USSC case is controlled now- or it means that all of the JBT moves that the ATF has pulled since passage of the NFA and GCA are unconstitutional. They have to protect their position- they have to protect their JOBS- and that is their interest in filing this brief.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:42 PMUsing
Let us pray that we have the better lawyers then. I’m sure we do, actually. Politics, however, may flavor the decision. All we can do, really, is pray that the SCOTUS judges can see beyond their personal politics and interpret the law as it was written.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:33 AMUsing
SCOTUS judges will not see beyond their personal opinions. They don’t have to–they’re infallible because they’re final, not the other way ’round. This case is shaping up to be a constitutional battle royal of strict construction and plain English versus imperial federal tyranny. Bear in mind, too, that the big-time GFW justices will also be anti-Bush–perhaps this will make their heads spin clean off.
I had a SCOTUS case years ago in which the U.S. planned and argued a devil’s advocate position, backhandedly supporting my client. It worked like a charm. At argument, the deputy solicitor took a lot of heat, gave responses that highlighted the flaws in my opponent’s position, making us look better. We won. This situation may not have that level of strategy behind it, but may achieve a similar, unintended purpose, by showing how idiotic it is to parse the plain words of 2A as D.C. and the other GFWs want.
Just think for a minute what “framing-era practice” was–around 1789 one could and did own and carry everywhere (except where local gummint has its own regulatory power–oh, that pesky 14A incorporation crap) as good or better than what the military has. Pretty much everything is available, short of artillery. Maybe some scholars out there can tell us if cannon were available and permitted for private ownership in the “framing-era”. That would give the revenuers some shivers and that would be good.
Look for a plurality decision with lots of hand-wringing from folks who live with military-grade armed security 24/7, yet can’t bear the thought of us protecting ourselves. Frankly, regardless of the decision, F’em!
January 15th, 2008 at 2:22 PMUsing
Ok, I’ll bite on this one. The ‘Arms’ that the British went out to take at Lexington and Concord included a set of cannon that John Hancock had purchased himself for use by the militia.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:09 PMUsing
Much appreciated, Draven32. Gives us even more wonderful choices when the words “shall not be infringed” get un-interpreted. I’m puttin’ away now for a BAR, a coupla those $200 FALs and a recoilless rifle. Maybe something in .50 for intermediate applications. Oh, almost forgot the .45 MAC10s–sure hope those hit the market again, too. Like a kid in a candy shop—drool!
January 16th, 2008 at 2:18 PMUsing
Fred Has weighed in on Bush being a Libtard:
http://www.redstate......ses_remand
Thats Why We need Fred to be the next President!
January 16th, 2008 at 5:54 PMUsing