Bush Lawyers Target Gun Control's Legal Rationale - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bush Lawyers Target Gun Control's Legal Rationale (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:04:21 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Being as I disagree with most of what bush has done. to you and others, that's exactly what I am.
Chris

I have LOTS of beefs with Bush as well.

Yet I don't hate the man.

You may not like hearing this truth, but you hate him.

wrong.

Chris

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:06:17 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

I'm not a one issue voter garand, how about you?

Chris

You SHOULD be.

Ultimately, it all boils down to ONE right.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:07:00 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:

You may not like hearing this truth, but you hate him.

wrong.

Chris

OF COURSE you don' think you hate him.

You do.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:10:33 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
does this mean free machine guns for everyone?

w00t!!!!!!w00t!!!!!!

All your MGs are belongs to us!

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:17:56 PM EDT

[#5]

Yea he said it to appease the soccer mom/pinko anti gun assholes.

Pres Bush is going to repay the NRA and gun owners in a big way(I hope)

FREE

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, but Bush said he would sign the assault weapon ban if it reached his desk.

Yep. There's no difference between Bush and Kerry. None at all.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:23:28 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Yea he said it to appease the soccar mom/ pinko anti gun assholes.

Pres Bush is going to repay the NRA and gun owners in a big(I hope)

Yeah, that's it. He lies to them, but he'd never lie to us. After all, if you can't trust a politician, who can you trust?

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:23:44 PM EDT

[#7]

I don't think it will come down to Bush directly.

I think this is a shot over the bow for the anti-gunners.

They will make sure that it is understood that it is an individual right, then things will get quiet... then he will appoint a bunch of Supreme Court Justices. Then, as soon as people feel ballsy enough to challenge each law, they will fall like dominoes.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:28:10 PM EDT

[#8]

He knew it would never hit his desk, therefore he didnt lie and kept his promise

FREE

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yea he said it to appease the soccar mom/ pinko anti gun assholes.

Pres Bush is going to repay the NRA and gun owners in a big(I hope)

Yeah, that's it. He lies to them, but he'd never lie to us. After all, if you can't trust a politician, who can you trust?

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:35:17 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yea he said it to appease the soccar mom/ pinko anti gun assholes.

Pres Bush is going to repay the NRA and gun owners in a big(I hope)

Yeah, that's it. He lies to them, but he'd never lie to us. After all, if you can't trust a politician, who can you trust?

Would you have preferred that he had made the Ban Sunsetting the centerpiece of his campaign?
Have it be his most outspoken, #1 isse?
If you say YES, then what you're REALLY saying is that you wish the ban was still in place, and that Kerry was about to be sworn in.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:36:27 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I don't think it will come down to Bush directly.

I think this is a shot over the bow for the anti-gunners.

They will make sure that it is understood that it is an individual right, then things will get quiet... then he will appoint a bunch of Supreme Court Justices. Then, as soon as people feel ballsy enough to challenge each law, they will fall like dominoes.

Don't count on it. Like I said before, adopting the individuyal rights approach didn't stop the Fifth Circuit from affirming Emersons conviction. At best, this is only the first step down a long road.

The next thing you have to deal with is arguments that AWBs and such are "reasonable restrictions." Just because you have a First Amendment right to free speech doesn't mean the court's won't uphold laws that hold you liable for defamation or "fighting words" or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

And then you have to deal with the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states. The Supreme Court has said that the Fourteenth Amendment applies some, but not all, of the Bill of Rights to the states. They've yet to say whether the Second Amendment is one of them.

We could very easily wind up with an "individual right" that only applies to federal gun laws, and that leaves lots of room for "reasonable" gun control.

Or we could end up with a Constitutional Right to own an M$.

But I wouldn't count on it.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:37:56 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

I'm not a one issue voter garand, how about you?

Chris

My one issue is, basically, freedom. Free markets, right to keep & bear arms, freedom of speech, etc. However, the Democrats are basically wrong on all of these issues, and the Libertarians and other third parties don't offer valid alternatives.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:43:25 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
And then you have to deal with the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states. The Supreme Court has said that the Fourteenth Amendment applies some, but not all, of the Bill of Rights to the states. They've yet to say whether the Second Amendment is one of them.

When did they say that?

My understanding is that's the states assumption; they assume that the 14th doesn't apply unless the court tells them it does.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:44:30 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think it will come down to Bush directly.

I think this is a shot over the bow for the anti-gunners.

They will make sure that it is understood that it is an individual right, then things will get quiet... then he will appoint a bunch of Supreme Court Justices. Then, as soon as people feel ballsy enough to challenge each law, they will fall like dominoes.

The next thing you have to deal with is arguments that AWBs and such are "reasonable restrictions." Just because you have a First Amendment right to free speech doesn't mean the court's won't uphold laws that hold you liable for defamation or "fighting words" or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Said 'reasonable restrictions' on 1st Amendment rights have direct affects on people. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater directly endangers people. Slander and libel can hurt someone's ability to pursue happiness and provide for him/herself and his/her family.

My owning an 'Assault rifle' doesn't directly hurt anyone, nor does it infringe on anyone else's constitutional rights. So limiting or restricting my ownership thereof is NOT reasonable.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:45:00 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
He knew it would never hit his desk, therefore he didnt lie and kept his promise

I guess that makes him an honorable man, in a Clintonesque sort of way.

He said he supported the ban when he was Governor of Texas, and he said he supported it when he was president. Either he's an honest enemy of a dishonest ally. Either way, I'm not too comfortable with it. YMMV, of course.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:52:01 PM EDT

[#15]

I can't believe it. Finally, at least "someone" is bringing up the issue on our side. Thank GOD! and President Bush. I believe this is the first time an administration has been on the side of the citizens over guns. I love it.

I just hope this is the start of something good and we get our rigths back and some more UnConstitutional laws are overturned.

Where are the cops. SPEAK UP! Get your departments behind the citizens! We pay your wages and we need your support. So SPEAK UP!!!

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:53:27 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Said 'reasonable restrictions' on 1st Amendment rights have direct affects on people. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater directly endangers people. Slander and libel can hurt someone's ability to pursue happiness and provide for him/herself and his/her family.

My owning an 'Assault rifle' and being a citizen in good standing doesn't directly hurt anyone, nor does it infringe on anyone else's constitutional rights. So limiting or restricting my ownership thereof is NOT reasonable.

Better, no?

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:54:07 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
And then you have to deal with the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states. The Supreme Court has said that the Fourteenth Amendment applies some, but not all, of the Bill of Rights to the states. They've yet to say whether the Second Amendment is one of them.

When did they say that?

My understanding is that's the states assumption; they assume that the 14th doesn't apply unless the court tells them it does.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer nonetheless.

Several years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court discovered that the due process and equal protyection clauses it "incorporated" certain rights set out in the first ten Amendments. They didn't do it all at once--it's been a case-by-case thing. Over the years, they've said that the states can't infringe your First Amendment right to Free Speech, for instance, but they can trample all over your Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases involving $20 or more. Since it's not an all or nothing thing, you can't assume that a Constitutional right will apply against the states until the court has decided for that particular right.

After the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, but before the Court invented the incorporation Doctrine, the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. They have not revisited the issue since inventing the doctrine, so it's an open question whether it will apply.

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:55:14 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Yeah, but Bush said he would sign the assault weapon ban if it reached his desk.

Thats cause he KNEW it woulden't reach his desk, not with the hammer in the senate!

Posted: 1/7/2005 1:59:25 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think it will come down to Bush directly.

I think this is a shot over the bow for the anti-gunners.

They will make sure that it is understood that it is an individual right, then things will get quiet... then he will appoint a bunch of Supreme Court Justices. Then, as soon as people feel ballsy enough to challenge each law, they will fall like dominoes.

The next thing you have to deal with is arguments that AWBs and such are "reasonable restrictions." Just because you have a First Amendment right to free speech doesn't mean the court's won't uphold laws that hold you liable for defamation or "fighting words" or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Said 'reasonable restrictions' on 1st Amendment rights have direct affects on people. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater directly endangers people. Slander and libel can hurt someone's ability to pursue happiness and provide for him/herself and his/her family.

My owning an 'Assault rifle' doesn't directly hurt anyone, nor does it infringe on anyone else's constitutional rights. So limiting or restricting my ownership thereof is NOT reasonable.

I'm not arguing with you. but that doesn't mean the court's are going to buy it.

If Congress decides that prohibition or restriction of private ownership of machine guns or "assault weapons" or hand guns is an appropriate public safety measure, the courts may well defer to Congress's judgment.

That's just the way it is.

Like it or not.

Posted: 1/7/2005 2:20:25 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think it will come down to Bush directly.

I think this is a shot over the bow for the anti-gunners.

They will make sure that it is understood that it is an individual right, then things will get quiet... then he will appoint a bunch of Supreme Court Justices. Then, as soon as people feel ballsy enough to challenge each law, they will fall like dominoes.

The next thing you have to deal with is arguments that AWBs and such are "reasonable restrictions." Just because you have a First Amendment right to free speech doesn't mean the court's won't uphold laws that hold you liable for defamation or "fighting words" or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Said 'reasonable restrictions' on 1st Amendment rights have direct affects on people. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater directly endangers people. Slander and libel can hurt someone's ability to pursue happiness and provide for him/herself and his/her family.

My owning an 'Assault rifle' doesn't directly hurt anyone, nor does it infringe on anyone else's constitutional rights. So limiting or restricting my ownership thereof is NOT reasonable.

I'm not arguing with you. but that doesn't mean the court's are going to buy it.

If Congress decides that public safety requires that prohibition or restriction of private ownership of machine guns or "assault weapons" or hand guns is an appropriate public safety measure, the courts may well defer to Congress's judgment.

That's just the way it is.

Like it or not.

We have a winner. Give that man a cigar.

Posted: 1/7/2005 2:29:56 PM EDT

[#21]

I don't think this has to do with the overturning of any bans or laws. It's more just to clarify the 2nd Amendment covers individuals and not just militias. It may not seem like that much, but if it goes through it will protect us in the future. I don't care if MG's are legal to buy or not. The major ban I want to see turned over is the importation ban. 552's, G36's, and AUG's for all!

Posted: 1/7/2005 2:35:06 PM EDT

[#22]

What Eugene Volokh, a Prof. of Law at UCLA testified to in Congress.

" But our concern about these problems can't blind us to the clear verdict of the constitutional text and the constitutional history: The Framers of the Bill of Rights (and of the Fourteenth Amendment 20) saw the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, entitled to the same sort of dignity and protection as the freedom of speech, the privacy of the home, the right to trial by jury, and our other constitutionally secured protections.

As the Court said when defending another often unpopular right -- the privilege against self-incrimination --

If it be thought that [a right] is outmoded in the conditions of this modern age, then the thing to do is to take it out of the Constitution [by constitutional amendment], not to whittle it down by the subtle encroachments of judicial opinion. 21

Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.

21. Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 427-28 (1956) (Frankfurter, J.).

Posted: 1/7/2005 2:37:17 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I don't think this has to do with the overturning of any bans or laws. It's more just to clarify the 2nd Amendment covers individuals and not just militias. It may not seem like that much, but if it goes through it will protect us in the future. I don't care if MG's are legal to buy or not. The major ban I want to see turned over is the importation ban. 552's, G36's, and AUG's for all!

we can domestically make all those guns if there's sufficient demand, we can't make any more MGs, that's why the 86 ban has to go.

Posted: 1/7/2005 2:39:13 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I don't think this has to do with the overturning of any bans or laws. It's more just to clarify the 2nd Amendment covers individuals and not just militias.

Bingo. The DOJ memo explicitly says that it isn't commenting on existing firearms laws.

It may not seem like that much, but if it goes through it will protect us in the future.

I think I've said all I'm going to say about that.

I don't care if MG's are legal to buy or not. The major ban I want to see turned over is the importation ban. 552's, G36's, and AUG's for all!

If he really loved us, Bush could do thjis with a stroke of a pen. His daddy created the ban with an executive order, and he could revoke it just as easily.

Posted: 1/7/2005 2:42:59 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All I can say is....

"SCHWIIIIINNNGGGGG!!!!!!!!"

(waiting for cyanide and the Bush haters to rain on the parade)

hope it goes through, why would we bitch?

Force of habit?

Reflex?

Don't know what else to do?

Because you hate him, and that emotion tends to block out reason.

(Funny how when the call went out for "Bush haters, you responded...)

Being as I disagree with most of what bush has done. to you and others, that's exactly what I am.
To you as well.
You weren't called by name.

But you came...
of course, unlike some(most) in here, I see some good on both sides (reps/dems), as well as bad.

no party line towing here cin, how about you? snicker

You just don't hear us when we say bad things about the Bush policies on:

Immigrationonly one I've heard y'all bitch about
Tariffs
Farm Bill
Prescrition Drugs

We criticize, yet you don't hear.
It ruins the monolithic image, that you so prefer.
That's OK.

So, what are your favorite Democrat proposals ?

I noticed that you did not answer the question posed to you. No surprise.

Posted: 1/7/2005 2:58:48 PM EDT

[#26]

actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:03:51 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

(waiting for cyanide and the Bush haters to rain on the parade)

hope it goes through, why would we bitch?

no hopes up yet for sure.

chris

Funny - I say "Bush haters" and YOU chirp up.

The Bush admin killed the AWB and now is moving in directions we haven't seen since 1778 re: gun rights.

Yet y'all still hate him

I'm not a one issue voter garand, how about you?

Chris

Me, I'm a three issue voter...and the Dems are on the wrong side of every one of em.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:05:12 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Hopefully Bush wil get to appoint 4 Constitutionalist judges to the Supreme Court before one of the cases is taken up.

That's right!!! Maybe this is the groundwork being laid for a 2nd Ammendment ruling by a conservative SCOTUS.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:06:17 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think this has to do with the overturning of any bans or laws. It's more just to clarify the 2nd Amendment covers individuals and not just militias.

Bingo. The DOJ memo explicitly says that it isn't commenting on existing firearms laws.

It may not seem like that much, but if it goes through it will protect us in the future.

I think I've said all I'm going to say about that.

I don't care if MG's are legal to buy or not. The major ban I want to see turned over is the importation ban. 552's, G36's, and AUG's for all!

If he really loved us, Bush could do thjis with a stroke of a pen. His daddy created the ban with an executive order, and he could revoke it just as easily.

Nope. It was later codified into law by the congress IIRC. Would require an act of congress to change it.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:06:56 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

Nope, wrong answer. The money is OURS and letting us keep more of OUR money is not a bad thing.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:08:05 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
My owning an 'Assault rifle' doesn't directly hurt anyone, nor does it infringe on anyone else's constitutional rights. So limiting or restricting my ownership thereof is NOT reasonable.

Why did you put assault rifle in quotations?

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:10:01 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Said 'reasonable restrictions' on 1st Amendment rights have direct affects on people. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater directly endangers people. Slander and libel can hurt someone's ability to pursue happiness and provide for him/herself and his/her family.

Never did buy this argument.

I suspect the Founding Fathers would have opined that the 1st does guarantee this right, but also that everyone else in that theater should promptly beat the living shit out of the idiot yelled 'fire'. Supporting this view has only succeeded in making the legal profession a whole lot more important than it really should be.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:10:31 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
He knew it would never hit his desk, therefore he didnt lie and kept his promise

I guess that makes him an honorable man, in a Clintonesque sort of way.

He said he supported the ban when he was Governor of Texas, and he said he supported it when he was president. Either he's an honest enemy of a dishonest ally. Either way, I'm not too comfortable with it. YMMV, of course.

Of course you would rather have Bore or Skerry, wouldn't you.

When did he say he supported the AWB while Gov of Texas? Was that during the time that he was signing laws that were pro-gun, such as various carry laws?

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:11:03 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

Nope, wrong answer. The money is OURS and letting us keep more of OUR money is not a bad thing.

I do not disagree with that. of course I don't like the trillion and rising cost we'll be dumping on our future either. bad time for rebates IMHO

Chris

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:14:53 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

Repeal the tax cuts??????????? Are you serious? Do you have a job?

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:18:28 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

Repeal the tax cuts??????????? Are you serious? Do you have a job?

yes, what's that got to do with it?

Chris

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:19:45 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

Repeal the tax cuts??????????? Are you serious? Do you have a job?

yes, what's that got to do with it?

Chris

Because I can't imagine any working person wanting to pay more taxes.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:25:03 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Readying for a constitutional showdown over gun control, the Bush administration has issued a 109-page memorandum aiming to prove that the Second Amendment grants individuals nearly unrestricted access to firearms.

They need to understand that the Constitution doesn't "grant" anything, it doesn't give us rights. Our rights exist, period, the Constitution simply says that the government can't make laws taking them away.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:25:47 PM EDT

[#39]

Bush isn't going to argue in our favor......you are all fools if you think that.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:28:39 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

Repeal the tax cuts??????????? Are you serious? Do you have a job?

yes, what's that got to do with it?

Chris

Because I can't imagine any working person wanting to pay more taxes.

how else are we going to pay the bills this country are building at an astronomical rate. more debt? print whatever ya need? not very smart IMHO think the clinton bubble was a bitch, wait til this one breaks.
Chris

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:28:59 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

The correct way to deal with the deficiet is to cut spending.

We should make deeper tax cuts. We pay way too much in taxes.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:29:59 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

Repeal the tax cuts??????????? Are you serious? Do you have a job?

yes, what's that got to do with it?

Chris

Because I can't imagine any working person wanting to pay more taxes.

Well, Larry I guess we've found our Huckleberry. I hope he's already donating to the Treasury so he don't just look like someone who wants to wait and go along with the crowd.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:30:49 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
actually I didn't see it lar.

repeal the tax cuts for one

Chris

The correct way to deal with the deficiet is to cut spending.

We should make deeper tax cuts. We pay way too much in taxes.

what's been cut?

do you see any "less" spending happening? I sure as hell don't.
Chris

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:32:57 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

how else are we going to pay the bills this country are building at an astronomical rate. more debt? print whatever ya need? not very smart IMHO think the clinton bubble was a bitch, wait til this one breaks.
Chris

We need to cut spending.

Arthur Laffer was right, higher taxes do not always equal higher returns for the government. Our problem is out of control spending.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:34:28 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:

how else are we going to pay the bills this country are building at an astronomical rate. more debt? print whatever ya need? not very smart IMHO think the clinton bubble was a bitch, wait til this one breaks.
Chris

We need to cut spending.

Arthur Laffer was right, higher taxes do not always equal higher returns for the government. Our problem is out of control spending.

shouldn't that be controlled before we start handing out cash?
or is that just me?
Chris

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:35:32 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Bush isn't going to argue in our favor......you are all fools if you think that.

That's what you hope for anyway. That is truly hilarious. Your boy Bill certainly didn't. I have seen no president in the last 30 years be this pro-gun.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:37:05 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

how else are we going to pay the bills this country are building at an astronomical rate. more debt? print whatever ya need? not very smart IMHO think the clinton bubble was a bitch, wait til this one breaks.
Chris

We need to cut spending.

Arthur Laffer was right, higher taxes do not always equal higher returns for the government. Our problem is out of control spending.

shouldn't that be controlled before we start handing out cash?
or is that just me?
Chris

The uncontrolled spending is mostly due to social programs started by the Dems, such as welfare.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:40:00 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

how else are we going to pay the bills this country are building at an astronomical rate. more debt? print whatever ya need? not very smart IMHO think the clinton bubble was a bitch, wait til this one breaks.
Chris

We need to cut spending.

Arthur Laffer was right, higher taxes do not always equal higher returns for the government. Our problem is out of control spending.

shouldn't that be controlled before we start handing out cash?
or is that just me?
Chris

The uncontrolled spending is mostly due to social programs started by the Dems, such as welfare.

oh yeah, I forgot. corporate welfare is ok, welfare to help people live and eat on their pittence don't count.

what was I thinking?

hell, let's reland on the moon too.

Chris

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:41:45 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

how else are we going to pay the bills this country are building at an astronomical rate. more debt? print whatever ya need? not very smart IMHO think the clinton bubble was a bitch, wait til this one breaks.
Chris

We need to cut spending.

Arthur Laffer was right, higher taxes do not always equal higher returns for the government. Our problem is out of control spending.

shouldn't that be controlled before we start handing out cash?
or is that just me?
Chris

The uncontrolled spending is mostly due to social programs started by the Dems, such as welfare.

oh yeah, I forgot. corporate welfare is ok, welfare to help people live and eat on their pittence don't count.

what was I thinking?

hell, let's reland on the moon too.

Chris

Corporate welfare? You mean tax breaks for companies so they can create more jobs.

I would rather go back to the moon than pay one penny to some crackhead baby machine.

They can get a fucking job. Don't start this class warfare shit.

Posted: 1/7/2005 3:43:05 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

how else are we going to pay the bills this country are building at an astronomical rate. more debt? print whatever ya need? not very smart IMHO think the clinton bubble was a bitch, wait til this one breaks.
Chris

We need to cut spending.

Arthur Laffer was right, higher taxes do not always equal higher returns for the government. Our problem is out of control spending.

shouldn't that be controlled before we start handing out cash?
or is that just me?
Chris

The uncontrolled spending is mostly due to social programs started by the Dems, such as welfare.

oh yeah, I forgot. corporate welfare is ok, welfare to help people live and eat on their pittence don't count.

what was I thinking?

hell, let's reland on the moon too.

Chris

Corporate welfare? You mean tax breaks for companies so they can create more jobs.

I would rather go back to the moon than pay one penny to some crackhead baby machine.
that's ALL of them, right lar?
greed over need. not suprising.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bush Lawyers Target Gun Control's Legal Rationale (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us