George Bush is no conservative (and never has been). Not only has he grown the Federal budget faster than any president since FDR, he argues that the 2nd Amendment gives the government the right to take your guns away.
Since “unrestricted’ private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.
The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to “reasonable regulation” and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.
What’s reasonable to George Bush is quite unreasonable to me. The Constitution says what it says, and arguing otherwise makes Bush no different than Al Gore, who ran in 2000 with the mindset that the Constitution is a “living document”, meaning it says what Al Gore wants it to say.
I’ve always believed you. 🙂
Thanks Timm!! 😀
Hey, EchoZoe, How’s it going.
To be clear about my position on the issue. I believe every law-abiding person has the right to self-defense, up to and including the right shoot (with firearms of their choice) an attacker.
However, I have never viewed Bush as much of a conservative (no matter what the Left says) and I usually don’t feel betrayed when he exhibits his moderate tendencies. Betrayal would imply that the person was supposed to be on my side to begin with ;o) Now if Bush quit the war on terror… that would be betrayal.
Hey Jason! Good to hear from you. I miss some of this discussion since closing my forum (I love not being involved in theological fights though 😀 )
I wouldn’t consider this particular position to be even moderate – it’s liberal in every way. Saying “reasonable” restrictions are okay when it is the government gets to decide what is reasonable is the same as saying there are no rights there at all. It’s the same as the UN (which Bush loves) which has many rights listed in it’s charter, but rather than being given by God and protected by government, as the US Constitution professes, they allow for those same rights to be limited as the UN sees fit.
I do agree though, it technically isn’t a betrayal to those of us who knew the sheep’s clothing was just a costume all along (pardon the theological analogy being used in a political context).
My fear (and prediction) is that McCain, Romney, & Huckabee would be no different. I see no solid difference between any of them and Bush. Ironic that they all talk about “change”. We won’t find out though, as my Hillary prediction seems to be playing out as expected so far. After all, Barak Hussein Osama has been running for VP all along.
Anyway, like I said: it’s good to hear from you!!