Second Amendment In Danger Under Anti-Gun Bush?

Question

In the wake of the tragic shooting massacre in Virginia this week gun control advocates have once again come crawling out of the woodwork to capitalize on the ill informed and automated response of blaming the destructiveness of a mentally ill person's rampage on the second amendment.

The problem is that the gun control advocates are preaching to the converted when they clamor and claw at the government to restrict gun ownership in America.

Gun control advocates should applaud Bush for what he has done for their cause, instead they reveal the enormity of the false left/right paradigm that exists in US politics by berating him and his ilk as right wing gun nuts.

Many point to the fact that Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 as an indication that he caved in to the NRA. John Kerry even accused Bush of conspiring to "chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and families that he promised to protect."

In Reality Bush wanted to renew the assault weapons ban but was forced to let it expire when it became clear that he may not retain office in 2004 should he alienate core Republican voters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3013559.stm

At the time Bush was applauded by Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for his stance.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32170

The assault weapons ban is just one of the numerous anti-gun positions taken by the Bush Administration. Additional examples include disarming airline pilots, forfeiting gun rights for misdemeanors, and arguing that the total DC gun ban is a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

Speaking in late 2005 on the topic of the second amendment, former Republican Congressman, CIA official and board member on the NRA Bob Barr said that his position had enabled him to judge the difference between how the Clinton and Bush administration's approached the issue of gun control. Barr echoed the sentiments of many other prominent conservatives in expressing his frustration about how the Bush administration was even more anti-second amendment than the Clinton office.

"it's my impression to be honest with you, and this is confirmed by a lot of folks who are involved very heavily in regulatory matters involving firearms, that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration."

In the past another Republican Congressman, and now Presidential candidate, Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of emergencies such as an avian flu pandemic or natural disasters.

"I think they're concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don't buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don't want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don't want any resistance to their authoritarian rule."

Paul, a staunch gun-rights supporter, has previously blasted the administration's position on so-called "assault weapons" while claiming it is gun-rights oriented as hypocritical.

In making his point, Paul quoted Georgetown University professor Robert Levy, who recently offered this comparison: "Suppose the Second Amendment said, 'A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"

"Tortured interpretations of the Second Amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed," said Paul.

Answer 1

Took too many nooginfoggers again didn't you?

Answer 2

You forget the recent DC gun ruling by the CONSERVATIVE wing in the Supreme Court that stated an individual has a right to bear arms and wiped out the DC Ban. Guns are safe under the current administration. Congress in contrast is another matter, but there are many pro gun democrats in the house currently leaving the gun grabbers in the minority.

Answer 3

In some states, conviction for a 3rd degree felony can forfeit an individual's right to gun ownership. A 3rd degree felony now includes shooting a domestic animal (dog, cat, etc). I personally know of someone who cannot buy guns anymore because he shot a dog in his front yard that was growling at his young children.

Answer 4

Pro gun, NRA types have been doing the same. Situations like this seem to be a lightning rod for both sides, because I have and seen many people say this proves that we need more armed people.

Answer 5

Anyone with half a brain know Rinos like Bush,Giuliani,Romney and so on are no friend of law abiding gun owners or the 2nd amendment.

Answer 6

It would be highly unusual for the 2nd amendment to be repealed. Never has one of the Bill of Rights been removed. I do however agree that this man, who had been treated for mental illness was allowed to obtain guns too easily considering he was a wacko. Bush has virtually no control in amending the Constitution.

Answer 7

First, you're able to desire to comprehend that united statesa. has been Christian because of the fact it is creation and has in no way develop into some form of fascist Christian regime that slaughters all people who oppose Christian indoctrination. 2d, you and all the different whiners such as you who look to experience that it is incorrect for a central authority to symbolize maximum human beings of it is human beings (maximum everybody is definitely Christian), could desire to examine first what seperation of church and state particularly potential and what it develop into definitely meant for before you attempt to apply it to strengthen your opinion. Seperation of church and state has in no way meant that the government won't be able to or shouldn't use faith as a foundation for it is determination making. It only potential that Congress won't be able to set up an sturdy faith. What does that boil right down to? particularly that Congress won't be able to set up an sturdy faith that each and every citizen has to stick to, it won't be able to restrict non secular expression (in this form the determination to not enable prayer in public colleges is definitely unconstitutional). See you study those issues once you delve greater deeply into concerns and study the context of issues instead of twisting words interior the form to point what you go with it to.

Answer 8

Bush would love to microchip all firearms.

Answer 9

I will keep mine !!