search
top

Can someone explain to me …

what George W. Bush’s administration has done for gun owners? His administration has filed a brief supporting the DC gun ban. This is nothing more than total an utter betrayal by Bush of gun owners. John Ashcroft was a friend of the second amendment, no doubt on that, but I don’t think Bush ever was.

NRA needs to set a VERY high standard for the next Republican candidate for getting an endorsement, and if he doesn’t meet that standard, he doesn’t get it. John McCain, I’m talking to you. Start kissing ass now buddy, because you have some amends to make. If you’re our friend in the same way Bush said he was, you can go get bent.

George W. Bush is no friend of gun owners. He did not ever deserve NRA’s endorsement. This is a betrayal that cannot be forgiven.

UPDATE: Guess who wrote the brief? Chief Council for ATF. Guess who his boss is?

UPDATE: Joe Huffman has an excerpt of the brief and had this to say:

This is from a brief filed in favor of D.C. in the Heller case. If I read it correctly they are concerned that the ATF could be put out of a job because they might no longer be able to regulated the manufacture and sale of firearms and maintain their registry of machineguns. Hence, they want to be left with some power to regulate firearms. I’m not a friend of the ATF (individuals at the ATF is something different) but D.C. surely cannot consider them much of a friend either.

The basic crux of the brief is that the Administration is arguing for a standard less than strict scrutiny on right to bear arms cases.   They aren’t arguing that the second amendment isn’t an individual right.  Nonetheless, this opens the door to the possibility of what I would call a “worst case” individual rights ruling, which would basically make the second amendment the only fundamental right protected by the bill of rights which is subject only to intermediate scrutiny at best, and a rational basis test at worst.

This outcome would not be a complete disaster, but if it leaves the door open for cities to ban the possession of functional firearms, there’s not much that the second amendment could be considered an obstacle to.  The second amendment needs to be subject to strict scrutiny, otherwise the lower courts will rule that the Heller precedent doesn’t mean a damned thing, just like they did with Miller.

I think we can ask for more than this out of a supposedly pro-gun president that gun owners helped put in office.

17 Responses to “Can someone explain to me …”

  1. Flash Gordon says:

    Bush would have signed an extension of the Clinton Gun Ban if it had ever got to his desk. He’s certainly no friend of gun owners. He’s no friend to a lot of people who have stood by him. His M.O. is to screw his friends and appease his enemies. Right now he is in the Middle East screwing Israel and appeasing Palestinian terrorists. What a guy.

  2. straightarrow says:

    Anybody remember his father? An apple doesn’t fall far from the tree and this apple didn’t even roll a little bit. Just another empty suit with nothing in it but an asshole. Just like Daddy.

    Where we get screwed is he was still better than Gore or Kerry, so pragmatism, there’s that word again, dictated we vote for him.

    You must forgive him. That is your philosophy, as you have explained many times. He betrays us, but he was the compromise on principle for pragmatic reasons. Further, aren’t we supposed to say something now about how we may not agree with him but we respect his position and he may have reasons we don’t understand that apply nationally, therefore his betrayal of us is forgiveable because we are but one segment of society? And aren’t we also supposed to be understanding because he may not want egg on his face or lose political capital when he put the egg on others’ faces and retain his access to those are pleased with this?

    I have read you saying these very things almost verbatim, only about a different betrayer. Too late to turn your coat now and become irate.

  3. Sebastian says:

    He said that, but the Republican leadership in Congress made sure that ban never saw his desk. Bush is no real friend of gun owners, but he’s not stupid. He knew he couldn’t politically afford to sign that ban, so he played both sides of the issue. He declared his support for it, knowing full well Congress, knowing the politics of the issue, wouldn’t do that to their own President. Whether we like it or not, it seems that was the major contribution of the Bush presidency for gun owners. The DOJ letter supporting the individual rights view was another, but now I’m convinced that was totally John Ashcroft’s doing, who I think understood the politics better than his boss.

  4. Sebastian says:

    You must forgive him. That is your philosophy, as you have explained many times. He betrays us, but he was the compromise on principle for pragmatic reasons.

    You’re right, he was. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

    Further, aren’t we supposed to say something now about how we may not agree with him but we respect his position and he may have reasons we don’t understand that apply nationally, therefore his betrayal of us is forgiveable because we are but one segment of society?

    This isn’t the same as the Georgia bill. It’s not a matter of priorities. A brief has been filed with the Supreme Court with the intent to actively disparage our rights, at the core, fundamental level. We lose this, we lose it all. President Bush knows what’s at stake, and he’s allowed his administration to file a brief anyway.

    The principle at issue in Georgia is what interest among gun owners is a priority. That’s a fundamentally different issue than which side you are on in the case that will, in all likelihood, determine the ultimate fate of all our second amendment rights. Reasonable people can disagree on priorities, but we all do have to pick what side we’re on. At this point, I think Bush fell of the fence onto the other side.

  5. Jym says:

    Straightarrow, your inability to understand the views of anyone other than yourself is absolutely mind boggling.

    Just because someone gives you a choice between getting punched and getting stabbed doesn’t mean you can’t yell, “Ouch!” when the fist connects.

    I hope that your inability to understand that is more the result of being willfully disagreeable because you enjoy it, because if you actually lack the mental ability to make that logical jump, well, that’s just a little depressing.

  6. Sailorcurt says:

    I hate to flagellate an exanimate Equus caballus but this is just too ironic to pass up. I swear I’ll let it drop and just agree to disagree with you after this.

    George W. Bush is no friend of gun owners. He did not ever deserve NRA’s endorsement. This is a betrayal that cannot be forgiven.

    So…exactly who was the betrayer? George Bush for being himself? Or the NRA for giving him the endorsement though he didn’t deserve it?

    So the next time the NRA blatantly endorses someone who doesn’t deserve it, will you castigate the NRA for it? Or will you defend and support the NRA, tell us all that it was the politically expedient thing to do, and then denounce the endorsed candidate as a “betrayer” when they do nothing more than live up to their stated principles?

    And before Jym starts ruminating about my implied intelligence…Yes, I understand the principle of pragmatism, but as applied by Sebastian to the NRA, I disagree with it.

    I still support the NRA and I will continue to do so. But I WILL NOT DEFEND THEM when what they do is wrong. If that makes me stupid…well, I guess that’s something I’m just going to have to live with.

  7. Sebastian says:

    So…exactly who was the betrayer? George Bush for being himself? Or the NRA for giving him the endorsement though he didn’t deserve it?

    I wouldn’t have said in 2004 that Bush didn’t deserve the endorsement. At that point, he looked like a halfway decent guy on the issue. He signed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and prevented the Assault Weapons Ban renewal from being attached to it by insisting he’d only sign a “clean” bill.

    In hindsight, he didn’t deserve the endorsement, because he’s done nothing for us in his second term, and has actually been actively working against us.

  8. David Codrea says:

    Oh for God’s sake–Ashcroft bent over backwards to make sure “compelling state interest” trumped all, and his solicitor general Ted Olson was making the exact same arguments as this latest brief presents back in the Emerson case.

  9. JJR says:

    The last good thing GWB did for gun owners that I know of was sign the Texas CHL into law as Governor. That was a very good thing, but it was back in the mid 90s.

  10. Tom says:

    Just spin it as ” that nazi war criminal George Bush wants to disarm liberals so he can kill them” and we could flood the streets with all the lunatic lefties for the PR alone.

    There’s ONE person who has the highest standard on gun rights, but dupes and dopes continue to push for McThompson instead of Paul.

    Also, besides the fact that the feds are generally out to screw people at any and every opportunity even IF the court was dumb enough to buy it and start a civil war we’d still have the 9th amdt…because I don’t know about you, but I never relinquished my right to self defense by the most effective means.

  11. Sebastian says:

    Paul is a kook, and his electoral success so far should be a testament to why people aren’t getting behind him. Thompson is hardly my compromise candidate…. except for a few issues his views are very close to my own.

  12. DaveP. says:

    He hangs with Nazis and he’s a mentally-disturbed bigot… but we should vote for him because he likes the Constitution.

    Way to give Libertarians a bad name, dude.

  13. Joe Huffman says:

    You should read the brief before saying anything more. I have a few excerpts here.

  14. Sebastian says:

    A useful comment Joe. I have updated the post accordingly.

  15. straightarrow says:

    Sorry you believe what you said Jym, but I must tell you, it appears you are the one who does not understand priorities.

    I was not merely speaking of the Ga. debacle, either.

    Perhaps you should read my defense of the NRA in comments several posts above.

    I understand others’ views more than they are generally comfortable with, and yes, I am yelling “ouch”. Understanding them and agreeing with them are not the same thing. Nor am I disposed to pretend respect for views I believe to be wrong, though I may have respect for the person holding them.

    It appears you can’t comprehend that.

  16. Tom says:

    “He hangs with Nazis and he’s a mentally-disturbed bigot… but we should vote for him because he likes the Constitution.

    Way to give Libertarians a bad name, dude.”

    Yes we should vote for him because he supports the constitution. That’s what the president’s JOB is…not to win a high school popularity contest, or be an actor, or have the best hair.

    If you want to talk about bigots and racists…Robert C Byrd would be happy to listen.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » The latest disappointment by the Bushes - [...] Yeah, betrayed does cover [...]
  2. Target Rich Environment » Blog Archive » Saturday Morning Super-Roundup - [...] Sebastian at Snowflakesinhell recently celebrated his blog’s first birthday (and has about twice as many posts as I’ve put up since July…
  3. Call me Ahab » Blog Archive » The mind boggles - [...] The Bush Administration has filed a brief supporting DC’s side in Heller. [...]
top