Civil unrest: Gun rights supporters livid at Bush

"God Loves Republicans"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63sMyCAJXEY

Oliphant and his headline writer call the one side "gun rights" supporters.

That is exactly the way the anti-rights political left wants the issue framed and distorted.

In fact, the formulation is under any view nonsense--"guns" (and other inanimate objects) can't have any rights under the Constitution. But under the Constitution PEOPLE can and do have rights, including the right to bear arms. Mr. Levy and his allies support these rights of the PEOPLE.

"the Bush administration has no principled intellectual foundation and cannot be trusted."

I'm glad the Rabid Right is finally figuring that out.

Posted by: Bushrod Washington | January 21, 2008 2:43 PM

How about we call them "Killing advocates"?

"Slaughter rights supporters"?

I have a Constitutional right to a flamethrower?

God hates guns more than those who claim He loves them.

Bushrod Washington,

You forgot the well regulated militia part.

When flame throwers are outlawed only outlaws will have flame throwers.

When battlefield tacticle nuclear artillery shells are outlawed...

What do you mean I can't hunt deer with an M-16? The 2nd ammendment says...

I have a Constitutional right to carry incendiary phospherous grenades?

I can't wait to get the anti-personnel land mines installed in my front yard. That will teach those kids to stay off my lawn!

Thank you Mr. Levy.

So, Bruce, Paulo, John D. and Jerry Whitebread...what are your collective thoughts on this?

This is wonderful. The Bush administration is essentially asking the Supreme Court to correct the dicta of a lower court.

The case below did not involve the issue of reasonable restrictions of the kind the Bush Administration seeks to inject into the debate. The D.C. law prohibited outright the possession of operable firearms by anyone other than the police. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not decide, and never purported to decide, whether any reasonable restrictions on ownership would pass constitutional muster. Thus, any language in the Court of Appeal’s opinion casting doubt on the validity of reasonable regulations would be “dictum” (i.e. language that is not binding precedent because it does not directly bear upon any contested issue actually decided.) Hence, it is not reasonably possible that consideration of “reasonable regulations” would alter the Court of Appeals’ judgment.

Thus, contrary to the Bush administrations request, there is nothing for the Court of Appeals to “reconsider” in terms of reasonable regulations. To do so would violate the rule that appellate courts are supposed to decide the controversies presented, rather than issue broad, advisory opinions offering a cornucopia of dicta having nothing to do with the actual issues decided.

As a general rule, appellate courts correct judgments, and not erroneous reasoning. Thus, if a lower court’s judgment is correct, an appellate court will not reverse or remand the case simply for the lower court to alter its wording. To do otherwise would be a patent waste of judicial resources. Instead, to prevent misunderstandings, the judicial system has fashioned the rule that language, not a part of the ratio decidendi of a case, has no precedential value and cannot be relied upon as binding.

The Supreme Court is no different in its outlook. In Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117, 126 (1945) the Court stated, “[O]ur power is to correct wrong judgments, not to revise opinions. We are not permitted to render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the . . . court after we corrected its views of federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion.”

The Supreme Court didn’t vote to hear this case because they thought the Court of Appeals’ wording was wrong or because its opinion didn’t contain enough dicta concerning regulations. They voted to take the case because there was a substantial split in authority among the several Circuit Courts on the issue of whether the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment against federal infringement, is a personal right. Thus, it is unlikely that they would generate dicta on the issue and then remand the case, as the Bush administration has requested, just so the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals can also issue even more dicta.

The Bush administrations request is nuts.

Cheryl:

Traditional Conservatives knew Bush wasn’t one of theirs a long time ago.

Please don't take away my AK...I have a terrible bug problem.

Actually Doug,

If guns kill people, then . . .

. . . pencils cause misspellings,

. . . automobiles cause drunk driving, and

. . . spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

All kidding aside, the Second Amendment was intended to keep Americans an armed people. The right was never traditionally limited to militias, because people all able bodied males made up the militias and everyone was required to furnish their own arms. Thus, the "well regulated militia" part was not intended to act as a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms. It was intended to state the reason why the individual right to keep and bear arms (implicit from the language "the People") is given constitutional sanction. That is, it must be read to mean “the People” have the right to keep and bear arms because, otherwise, a “well regulated militia” is not possible.

You guys can joke all you want about flame throwers and land mines, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The “collective rights” theory – that the right belongs to militias or similar groups and not individuals – is a recent fabrication.

Thanks for supporting my right to own a .50 caliber sniper rifle, a shoulder fired rocket launcher, AK-47s and other various assault rifles. Death to Amer...I mean God Bless America, the GOP and the NRA.

Traditional Conservatives knew Bush wasn’t one of theirs a long time ago.

Posted by: John W. | January 21, 2008 4:15 PM

Really? so why did you vote for him, smart guy?

* * * *
Really? so why did you vote for him, smart guy?

Posted by: John E | January 21, 2008 4:47 PM

Because that was seven years ago. In terms of politics, seven years is a long time. It was not well known at the time that he would turn out to be such a changeling. We did, however find out shortly after he took office.

That’s why I didn’t vote for him for his second term.

I've told you this so many times, I begin to wonder whether you suffer from amnesia. If you have recurring problems with memory like this, maybe you should see your physician.

John W is right. I must have the right to keep a loaded handgun in my bedroom drawer where my small children can easily access it, because with out it I could never join the National Guard.

I've told you this so many times, I begin to wonder whether you suffer from amnesia. If you have recurring problems with memory like this, maybe you should see your physician.

Posted by: John W. | January 21, 2008 4:56 PM

Johnny W,

I knew that George W Bush was a complete joke in 1999 and your sob story about how politics change in seven years is a lame excuse for your failure.

You didn't do your homework, you flunked the political preparation class.

You get an "F".

Case closed....

"the Bush administration has no principled intellectual foundation and cannot be trusted."
_____________________________
It was already stated here, but it is worth saying this again. We've been telling the neo-conies that for seven years.

Sp John W, which militia do you belong to? And do they really insist you supply your own firearm?

iow...I think your history is fine, but we no longer have 'well-regulated militias' other than the state national guard units, and they supply the weapons needed. When the reason no longer exists, so does the reasoning process.

If the people of Washington, D.C., want different gun laws, or no gun laws, they can elect different officeholders.

The Heller case should never have been considered a Second Amendment issue in the first place. That case has nothing at all to do with the continuation and effectiveness of a well regulated militia, which is a body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.

The Second Amendment was written to guarantee the continued right of the people to keep and bear arms under state laws that provided for well regulated militias. Most men were obliged under such laws – called by Washington “well regulated Militia Laws” -- to arm themselves for militia service. They were required to be enrolled in a specific militia company and to muster for periodic training.

It would have been odd indeed for Madison to have framed the Second Amendment to protect the “right” of the people as individuals to obey their own state militia laws.

The amendment was an instruction to the federal government not to use the Constitution to replace the state militia system with a peacetime standing army – a prospect that had been vigorously opposed by such anti-federalists as Patrick Henry.

Thomas Jefferson, the most prominent of the active proponents of a Bill of Rights, recognized the militia purpose of the Second Amendment. He referred to the amendment as “the substitution of militia for a standing army.” (Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802)

The Second Amendment is silent upon the right of individuals to arms for personal purposes, a subject left to state constitutions and state laws except to the extent that other provisions of the federal Constitution apply.

* * * * *

Posted by: Tom J | January 21, 2008 5:59 PM

Nice try, but you are wrong. Unlike a judicially declared ruling of the common law, the explicit text of the Constitution doesn't go away simply because of some change in circumstances or the mere passage of time.

Go look at Article V of the Constitution. In so many words it says that the Constitution does not change until and unless it is explicitly changed by the amendment process. So, until and unless the Second Amendment is repealed by further amendment, it protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Go look at Article V of the Constitution. In so many words it says that the Constitution does not change until and unless it is explicitly changed by the amendment process. So, until and unless the Second Amendment is repealed by further amendment, it protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: John W. | January 21, 2008 6:35 PM

Yup, that's why I get to have my landmines and flamethrowers. No one has ever changed the constitution to say I can't, Right John W?

Does anyone know if Walmart carries RPG's? I want to keep and bear a few of those arms.

* * * * *

I knew that George W Bush was a complete joke in 1999 and your sob story about how politics change in seven years is a lame excuse for your failure.

You didn't do your homework, you flunked the political preparation class.

* * * * *

Posted by: John E | January 21, 2008 5:15 PM

JohnEEE-boy,

You are fresh out of credibility when it comes to claims like this. I have already asked you before what I was supposed to know in 1999, or earlier, to put me on notice that Duh’bya wasn’t a real conservative, or that he would turn out to be a bad President. You didn’t provide any well known historical facts that would have informed me of his defects, and you haven’t explained why this time either.

Given your obvious and documented propensity to confuse myth and rumor with fact, and your inability to back up anything you say with something anyone can fact-check, a reasonable person can only assume you are talking out your you-know-where once again.

Keep it up JohnEEE-boy, and I’ll have to take back what I said about you being intelligent.

He's even lost his gun-loving base? Who's left? Must be the bottom 29% of all our high school classes (if they made it that far).

John W.,

The only reason cracks about flame throwers work is because there is truth to them.

I'm not about to try to out court case quote you. My law libary (sic intended) isn't going to be a pimple on yours. That said, you know about the 1930s Supreme Court case holding that sawed-off shotguns are outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment. That ruling nchallenged lo these many years, well, because it made so damned much sense.

So how do you conclude well regulated militia written in the amendment is esentially irrelevant while at the same time acquiscing to not allowing M-16s to commit bambiscide?

How do you Constituitionally square that circle?

Given your obvious and documented propensity to confuse myth and rumor with fact, and your inability to back up anything you say with something anyone can fact-check, a reasonable person can only assume you are talking out your you-know-where once again.

Keep it up JohnEEE-boy, and I’ll have to take back what I said about you being intelligent.

Posted by: John W. | January 21, 2008 6:47 PM

Johnny W,

I knew George W Bush was an idiot because I PAYED ATTENTION and you didn't.

I think it's milk & cookies and nappy time for you, Johnny, you're getting cranky again.

Johnny W my boy,

There was never any "myth" or "rumor" about how much of a stinking pile of crap Bush was and you know it. You walked into the voting booth and you blindly pulled the (R) lever, end of story.

You failed....

For anyone who didn't know Bush's track record on guns in Texas: when the NRA came to Bush with a bill needing his signature to become law, (i.e., forcing churches to admit people carrying guns), his only question was "where do I sign?"
Re 2nd A: "Well regulated", actually means well regulated. The individual right theory had no traction in the courts until the last 25 years when fake law scholarship sponsored by NRA (with prize $) advanced the collective right theory. No American federal court ever ruled in favor of the collective theory until recent Bush appointees ruled thus.

"Traditional Conservatives knew Bush wasn’t one of theirs a long time ago.

Posted by: John W. | January 21, 2008 4:15 PM"

IF they knew he wasn't a "traditional conservative" a long time ago, it certainly didn't stop the bona-fide conservatives from following in lockstep for a very long time behind him, until Bush finally became such an anathema to the whole country that it became clear that ANYONE who didn't distance themselves from him was going to be pulled down in his vortex.

Ultimately, that kind of blind obedience cost us military lives needlessly spent -- not to mention billions of dollars.

Doug,

The case from the 1930s to which you made referred is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Miller is misunderstood and often misquoted. In fact, your characterization of it as “holding that sawed-off shotguns are outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment” is incorrect, but understandable insofar as that is the way it is portrayed.

Miller never categorically excluded the possession of sawed-off shotguns from Second Amendment protection. The specific holding in the case was:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” (Citation omitted.)

Miller, 307 U.S. at 178 (emphasis added). The record did not contain evidence of the sawed-off shotgun’s utility as a military weapon because there was no hearing. The district court ruled, as a matter of law, that possession of a sawed-off shotgun was protected by the Second Amendment. Presumably, had there been evidence in the record that sawed off shotguns had a legitimate military use, the result would have been different.

However, to answer your second question, my understanding of the Second Amendment does not make the “well regulated Militia” language in the first clause irrelevant. It’s just that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” as declared in the second clause, is not dependent on the existence of, or participation, in a militia for its existence. To the contrary, the Second Amendment explicitly makes the existence or preservation of a “well regulated militia” dependent upon “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.” Thus, the Amendment guarantees a personal right to possess defensive firearms of a type which might be used in a militia.

The first clause, stating: “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . .” is a “preamble” clause – i.e. a declaration that describes the purpose of the law. The general rule for interpreting them is that, “if there is a broader proposition expressed in the act than is suggested in the preamble, the body or enacting part of the law will prevail over the preamble. But if the body of the act can be given a construction that is consistent with the purpose as declared in the preamble, it will be so construed.” (See Huntworth v. Tanner, 87 Wash. 670, 676-77, 152 P. 523 (1915).) But a preamble clause cannot restrain the clear and unambiguous language of the enacting part of the law. (See Copeman v. Gallant, 24 Eng. Rep. 404, 405, 407 (Ch. 1716).) This is precisely how the court in Miller treated “well regulated Militia” language in the first clause. The Court said Second Amendment was designed “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the Militia – and treated this as the purpose guiding its construction. (Miller, 307 U.S. at 178.) In this context, a construction which assures the existence of militias by guaranteeing the private right to keep and bear arms is entirely consistent with Miller and the language and history of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment, like most other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, did not create a new right. Instead, it was designed to protect a pre-existing common law right from congressional abridgement. (See U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875).) Because it protects a pre-existing common law right, the common law as developed in England and America informs us of its meaning. (See Wilson v. Arkansas , 514 U.S. 927, 931 (1995).)

According to William Blackstone, the right of “personal security” under the common law embraced the right of every Englishman to defend his life and limb; and, as auxiliary to that right, to have suitable weapons for defense. (1 Wm. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, at pp. 128-130, 143-144 (London 1825).) As a source for that right, Blackstone cites 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2., which was the “English Bill of Rights of 1688.” Consistent with Blackstone’s observations, the common law courts in England held, prior to ratification of the Second Amendment, that a man had a right to “keep a gun” in his home for his personal defense. (See Mallock v. Eastly, 87 Eng. Rep. 1370, 1374, 7 Mod. Rep. 482 (C.P. 1744) [viewing the issue as “settled and determined” that “a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family . . .”]; and Wingfield v. Stratford, 96 Eng. Rep. 787, 787, Sayer Rep. 15 (K.B. 1752) [Same.].) Thus, the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear Arms was a right “personal” to citizens.

This was exactly the case in America up to the time the Constitution was ratified. Even prior to ratification, Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 46, that a federal army seeking to oppress the country would face “a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” This was because we had “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Nearly every State Constitution at the time included a clause protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Only the federal government had no such explicit restraints and, thus, the call for a Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. Even the Court in Miller observed that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . .” and “that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” (Miller, 307 U.S. at 179.)

That it is a personal right is also supported by the language of Second Amendment where it describes the right as one belonging to “the People.” In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990), the Supreme Court observed the text of the Constitution “suggests that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” The phrase “the people,” then, has a consistent meaning throughout the Constitution. This is significant because the parts of the Bill of Rights employing the phrase “the people” have been found to be “personal” rights.

For example, the Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons,” etc. “against unreasonable searches and seizures, . . .” etc. The Supreme Court has always held that “‘Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which . . . may not be vicariously asserted.’” (See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 134-35 (1978), and cases collected.) Similarly, the rights of “the People” to peaceably assemble or petition for redress under the First Amendment have also been held to be individual and personal rights although protected by the Constitution as rights “of the people.” (See De Jong v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365-67 (1937) [First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble” used to prohibit a defendant’s conviction.].)

Finally, the decision in Miller, 307 U.S. 174, so often relied upon to support the idea the Second Amendment supports only militias and not individual rights, does not do so. Miller only drew upon the prefatory clause to determine what the term “arms” meant in light of the Second Amendment's militia purpose. The Court came to the unremarkable conclusion that only “arms” whose "possession or use . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" would qualify for Second Amendment protection. (Id., at 178.) That’s all the case said. The Court did not hold, nor can it be read to mean, that the Second Amendment protects only the right to keep and bear arms of that limited group known as a militia, or that all firearm possession must occur within the confines of militia activity in order to be free from Congressional restraint. If the Court had decided the Second Amendment protected only a collective right, it would have dismissed the defendants’ claims by observing that no evidence existed of their membership in a militia. The discussion regarding evidence of a suitable military use for a sawed-off shotgun would have been a waste of time.

So, to summarize, the text and history of the Second Amendment, consistent with the decision in Miller, shows that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right which the Constitution protects in order to insure the continuation, preservation and/or efficiency of militias made up of “the People.” That right still exists because we still may have the need, or more of the need, to form militias. To protect that need, the individual right to keep and bear arms is preserved.

This squares with preventing the use of M-16s for Bambicide insofar as the right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to use any firearm for any purpose one chooses. Defending oneself is one thing, and hunting is another. States may reasonably regulate the firearm use in hunting to protect the public from harm to life, limb and property.

Doug – please appreciate that this is an abbreviated analysis. I lopped off several pages, and it still ran long.

John E:

You take two posts to answer my one? And you still persist in your accusations without telling me what I should have known that you think was so obvious? You are telling us that basically half the voters who went to the polls in 2000 were all fools for not knowing what was obvious?

I will reiterate: Neither the MSM nor any Democrats were forking up any dirt on Duh’bya in 1999 or 2000. There was simply no evidence that he would turn out like he did. If he was so bad, as you suggest, then why wasn’t anyone screaming about it? If they were, then where is the evidence of such complaints?

You are entirely unreasonable in your approach, and I’m not going to bother with it any more. I think I’ve given up on you and your unreasonably nutty approach to everything.

* * * * *

Ultimately, that kind of blind obedience cost us military lives needlessly spent -- not to mention billions of dollars.

Posted by: Op109 | January 22, 2008 10:13 AM

So tell me, what could rank and file conservatives really do after he acquired the reins of power? Obedient or not, there was little conservatives or Republicans could do to stop Duh’byas use of the military. We depend upon our elected leaders to make the right decisions. Short of an impeachable offense – and the will to impeach by Congress – only the expiration of a term of office could dislodge him.

I did all I could do by not voting for Duh’bya in 2004. I didn’t have to tell my Senators or Congress-people to oppose Duh’bya’s actions because they were Democrats who already opposed the Iraq invasion.

Remember, also, that so many Democrats, including Kerry, Edwards and Clinton, supported the authorization to use force that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is not just a Republican thing. Get over it.

To: “Gun lover” & “Angry old man”:

Your arguments appeal only to emotion, and not reason. You should be proud of yourselves for such irrationality.

Both of your arguments boil down to the proposition that all people are idiots or inherently irresponsible, or both. Thus, if granted the right to keep a firearm at home, you argue, people will act so irresponsibly with regard to their firearms (while not with regard to all of the other deadly and dangerous stuff routinely found in a home), they would allow their children unsupervised access to loaded firearms, and/or go out and purchase weapons with exceptionally destructive power. These are such obvious and horrible results – your reasoning goes – that it defies common sense to allow them ever to occur. Since our laws and Constitution are based on reason, and must be interpreted reasonably, you conclude that such things could not possibly be permitted to occur.

Your first premise is not uncommon among pseudo-liberals of your stripe. I actually heard one of you folks say that people haven’t “evolved enough” to possess firearms responsibly. There are only two things wrong with this premise: 1) reality; and 2) the law, which is based on reality.

In reality, the overwhelming majority of people act responsibly when put in charge of dangerous instrumentalities. Contrary to pseudo-liberal expectations, most people have enough common sense not to mix common household chemicals into explosives or noxious poisons, or breathe them, or drink them; or set their houses on fire; or stab themselves or others with various items of common cutlery; or run over pedestrians or get into collisions with their cars.

Even people with children generally go through the process of “child-proofing” a house, so that chemicals and dangerous items are locked up or put away where children can’t get into them. And the vast majority of citizens don’t toss their kids the keys to let them take the car out for a spin. The government trusts us to keep this stuff, and yet its existence hasn’t resulted in the wholesale slaughter of citizens – even if an occasional imbecile does something that results in tragedy.

Now, much of this behavior results from common sense, the natural affection for loved ones, and the altruistic value of treating others as one would like to be treated. But the law also helps. The law in every State imposes upon everyone a duty to act with sufficient caution and prudence to prevent harm to others. This basic duty of responsibility is owed to everyone, including one’s own family members. Failure to comply with these laws, depending on one’s level of culpability, can result in lawsuits, divorce, restraining orders, deprivation of child custody and even jail time. Most people with just a few more brain cells than a starfish know this. It’s just the pseudo-liberals like you who can’t get it.

Daily evidence of care in the use and storage of firearms is shown every day in the overwhelming majority of the States - including the two most populous States where firearm possession is relatively unburdened by restrictions, registration and licensing. The overwhelming majority of firearm owners and users are also conservatives, yet they do not kill their children or themselves. If being a conservative is such a proxy for stupidity, like I keep hearing pseudo-liberals blather about constantly, then one might expect that conservatives would have since extinguished themselves from all the firearms they possess and the inherent dangers that firearm ownership brings.

Your second premise is also false, but I need not dwell long on it. People have lawfully possessed firearms in this country since before the U.S. was founded. Firearm possession has generally been permitted to law-abiding citizens in every State, except in those enclaves of pseudo-liberal lunacy where people can’t be trusted to act responsibly without a social worker breathing down their neck. Moreover, as I explained at length in another post, the Second Amendment certainly does protect the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The provisions of many State constitutions also protect the right of firearm ownership. Thus, not only is it conceivable that people can lawfully possess firearms – contrary to the contemptuous, condescending and limited expectations of people like you - they actually do possess them safely.

John W,

Really, GWB was no cypher in '99. Beyond the obvious fact that he was a bumbling, stuttering, inarticulate retrograde that couldn't chain together a complete sentence, there was his Texas record, his business record, and his stated opinions.

Everything he has uttered will end up in a joke book.

My reaction against him was visceral, as well. I get the same vibe from Julieanne.

C. Morris,

Duh'bya's "[t]exas record, his business record, and his stated opinions" were not widely known in 1999 or 2000 outside of Texas. Nor did he appear anywhere near as tongue-tied as he has in the last few years.

It would seem to me that someone - Democrat, Republican, Independent or Other - ought to have made his defects known to the general public. The MSM didn’t; the Democrats - who stood to gain the most by doing so – didn’t; and the Republicans who ran against him in the 2000 primaries didn't either.

One might also observe, contrary to what your stated, that Duh'bya wasn't exactly the same bumbling fool then that he is today. He must have had speech writers, or at least better ones; and he must have practiced his public speaking and debating skills back then. He even bested Al Gore in the debates. At least, that was the impression I got - as well as the impression the MSM had too.

So, how was I - a non-Texan who had only the MSM to inform him - supposed to know of this guy's defects? How was I supposed to know the MSM and RNC were lying when they said he was a straight up-and-down compassionate conservative? How were we to know he was a neo-con? How was anyone supposed to know what a neo-con was: we had never heard of such a thing.

No, C. Morris, he wasn't a cypher. But his warts didn't stick out either.

The bottom line is that a lot of people, myself included, were deceived as to exactly what he was up to and what he intended to do. I think a lot of Republicans would have chosen a different candidate to run for President had they known where he would lead us. This, I believe, is the reason his approval rating has dropped as low as it has.

As a Jewess in the US, I must say America wasn't won with a registered gun! All REAL Americans must put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!!

it's the right of the PEOPLE... This has nothing to do with guns actually, the question is whether or not two bit demagogues in the city gov of DC can unilaterally abrogate the rights of american citizens.

Gun Lobby = Lock and Load Luddites

"Well regulated", in the late 18th century was frequently used in place of orderly, or well arranged, as in, "He gave the appearance of being a well-regulated gentleman." It's use in the Second Amendment is just so, and does not imply a formally trained miltary body. Indeed, all able-bodied (white) men between 18 and 45 were considered militia, a general pool of the citizenry from which states could draw men for the more formal state militias. Our present day concept of the National Guard has no bearing.