1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Neocon Gun Grabbers: Second Amendment Allows Restrictions

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by StevenOtero, Jan 15, 2008.

  1. StevenOtero

    StevenOtero Well-Known Member

    6,455 Messages
    419 Likes Received
    In Bushzarro world, up is down, black is white, and the Second Amendment permits the government to make firearm possession illegal.

    “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,” reports . “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 was an understudy of the neocon Laurence H. Silberman, a federal judge appointed co-chair of the Iraq Intelligence Commission — the official excuse making body designated to minimize the impact of neocon lies about Iraq — and the reactionary Supreme Antonin Scalia, a member of the Federalist Society, a fascist club aligned with the American Enterprise Institute, the CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife, and a smattering of neocons, including Bill Kristol, the latest edition to the “liberal” New York Times. “Clement clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and worked as chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. He joined the Department of Justice in 2001 and moved into his current position in 2005.”

    “Clement is the Bush administration’s chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, ‘protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations,’ and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far,” WorldNetDaily continues.

    However, Clement argues that nothing “in the 2nd Amendment properly understood… calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.” In other words, according to Clement and the neocons, you have a right to possess firearms under the Constitution while at the same time the government has the right to make possession of firearms illegal. In Bushzarro world, up is down, black is white, and Orwellian doublethink – the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously – rules the day.

    It should come as no surprise the neocons are gun-grabbers while at the same time claiming to be conservatives. “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” the neocon sock puppet Bush told Republican Congressional leaders back in 2005 when some of them complained about the USA Patriot Act. “It’s just a *******ed piece of paper!”

    Neocon guru Leo Strauss “abhorred liberal democracy,” not the modern version of lefty liberalism, but classic liberalism, i.e., natural rights of the sort at the bedrock of the Constitution. He engendered this hatred of individual rights in his followers, including Allan Bloom, Henry Jaffa, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and many others, a handful now at the very pinnacle of power and pulling Bush’s strings. Strauss’ vision was of “a hierarchical society based on natural inequalities and welded together with the fanatical devotion state religion engenders,” writes Michael Doliner.

    Strauss’s political program is designed to counter the ills of liberalism. He believed in, and proposed, a state religion as a way of reviving absolutes, countering free thought, and enforcing a cohesive unity. Strauss argued against a society containing a multiplicity of coexisting religions and goals, which would break the society apart. He thought that ordinary people should not be exposed to reason. To rely on reason is to look into the abyss, for reason provided no comforting absolutes to shield one against the blank sky. Strauss opposed not reason itself, but reason stripped of its secrecy. Reason is for the few, not the many. The Enlightenment, the exposing of reason, was the beginning of the disaster. A reliance on reason, as opposed to religion, produced “modernity” which is nothing more than nihilism made political.

    Jeffrey Steinberg expands on this:

    The hallmark of Strauss’ approach to philosophy was his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run by “philosophers,” who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and deceived a foolish “populist” mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general population in clueless servitude. For Strauss and all of his protégés (Strauss personally had 100 Ph.D. students, and the “Straussians” now dominate most university political science and philosophy departments), the greatest object of hatred was the United States itself, which they viewed as nothing better than a weak, pathetic replay of “liberal democratic” Weimar Germany.

    It stands to reason, then, that the hated, resented, and feared masses should be stripped of all rights, including the bedrock right promised by the Second Amendment, as they may eventually come to their senses, abandon Faux News and propaganda catapulted, storm the castle, and bring the warmongering and liberty hating protégés of Strauss to justice.

    As Hitler, Mao, and Stalin realized — in fact as all dictators and tyrants understand — in order to run roughshod over the people and enslave them, you have to disarm them first and foremost.

    It is the job of U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement to begin this process.
  2. jman

    jman Active Member

    1,765 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Gun owner here.
  3. StevenOtero

    StevenOtero Well-Known Member

    6,455 Messages
    419 Likes Received
    Same here. Screw the Veterans Disarmament Act.
  4. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    33,079 Messages
    806 Likes Received
    Didn't you already start a thread about this?
  5. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,858 Messages
    1,698 Likes Received
    Stupid,biased article. You do not convince ANYONE using language like that.
    By the way, the government was saying that while some restrictions are ok, the basic RIGHT TO OWN A GUN is sacrosanct. BUT have it your way, out there is BIZZARRO land.
  6. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,903 Messages
    1,501 Likes Received
    Far be it form me to defend dumb dumb or his minions but in this instance he is clearly correct.

    We have rights guaranteed but also have inherently built into the constitution laws which supercede those rights.

    One has the right to free speech and yet it has been clearly ruled one can not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

    One of the rights we are guaranteed is the right to life.

    Idiots who oppose this recent bill are threatening that right to life by suggesting even criminals and mental cases be allowed to own and possess firearms. Their stupidity will eventually mean no guns for anyone. That's what happens when one can not be responsible or reasonable about rights, they get taken away.
  7. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,858 Messages
    1,698 Likes Received
    There will be a lot of very dead anti gun types if someone ever tries to really take them away.
  8. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,626 Messages
    412 Likes Received

    You aren't advocating violence are you bumfard?
  9. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,942 Messages
    356 Likes Received
    He's right though... personally, I would never shoot anyone attempting to take them unless I felt my family was threatened...

    It is our inherent right to own guns in the US...

    I own several...

    I don't worry about that though as they would never find mine anyway... ;)
  10. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,626 Messages
    412 Likes Received
    it is so odd though how one little artificial line in the sand gives our two countries such different views about guns.

    up here it is odd to hear someone say they own guns, whereas down there, it is odd to hear someone say they don't.
  11. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,858 Messages
    1,698 Likes Received
    You go out into the wilds of canada and you will find a VERY different response. Sort of like what happned in Australia when they attempted to take guns away from those in the Outback.
    Canadian, you know nothing about it and it is none of your business. So take a hike on this one.
    And yes I am advocating violence on anyone stupid enough to try and take our guns. Me and about 100 million other americans- maybe more. WHich is about 5 times as many as there are canadians, right?
    As has been pointed out= when the communists took over a country the first thing they did was disarm the population. Same with other dictators.
    Look at the Holocaust= the Jews were disarmed and could not fight back.
    Look at Rwanda, Darfur, etc; in each case you basically had a disarmed population that was slaughtered.
  12. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,626 Messages
    412 Likes Received
    Yeah the holocaust happened because Germany had gun control :rolleyes: Where did you learn that one, from the NRA? Here's a clue for you, gun control had NOTHING to do with six million jews dying.

    For someone who likes to call others dumb, you should look in the mirror.

    Funny you say I know nothing about the US so I should shut up then in the same post you yap about the wilds of Canada of which you know nothing (which is par for the course for you).

    You have no problem yapping other country's internal affairs when it tickles your fancy but the second I comment on a US issue, all I get from you is "you are just a stupid Canadian and it doesn't affect you so shut up".

    You have to be the most disrespectful and most rigid individual on the planet. You do not for one second consider other's views might be correct.

    Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe you are wrong on something?

    I know I shouldn't expect more from a marine, Lord knows my sister was married to a jarhead for 12 years and he never admitted he was wrong and never even considered opposing views. Maybe you are taught that by your DI in basic training.
  13. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    You were pretty good up until the last paragraph, then you showed that maybe you aren't quite sharp. burm sure is disrespectful overall, but his lack of respect for your view point might have it's merits.
  14. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,626 Messages
    412 Likes Received
    I have no problem with him disagreeing with me on anything, it's his manner of disagreeing. He can't tell me you are wrong because:

    a)

    b)

    c)

    he just calls me a name and tells me to shut up (he does it to other's too).

    if you are going to debate, at least back your view up. He just tries to yell louder than you.
  15. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    I understand your opinion of him; I think you should understand your experience of two Marine's (one online and anonymous; the other, one who obviously was not much of a husband to someone you love) isn't a good barmoeter with which to characterize them all with.

    I'm no Marine, but I've come across some pretty good men, who've been Marines.
  16. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,858 Messages
    1,698 Likes Received
    Well well the poor little canuck is all hurt. tsk tsk tsk

    take a hike. We could care less what you and all the rest up there think anyway.

    If you bothered to do any research instead of openiing wide and letting all hot air out maybe you would find out a few things.

    BUT actually I could care less and probably will just put you on ignore like some of the other more boring types.

    Those that sacrifice some freedom for security are often wrong; those that rely on others to fight for them are always wrong.

    Who was left to fight the Holocaust inside germany?
    Who was left to fight in Rwanda and Darfur and Cambodia?

    Maybe the results would not have been different if those people had been armed. BUT to say it would make no difference at all is just stupid. BUT then most of the anti gun morons are pretty stupid.
  17. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,626 Messages
    412 Likes Received
    When all else fails and you have no argument left, tell the other person he is stupid right?

Share This Page