George Bush is no friend of the 2nd Amendment. Few politicians are. I, for one don't understand how gun owners kept voting for him. What did he ever do for us? He was eagerly awaiting a chance to sign the AWB, but was thwarted by the grass roots efforts of folks like the GOA, (the NRA was, until the very last minute in favour of the AWB being re-instated so they could get a piece of pet legislation passed. The NRA are also not your friends). Beyond this what has he actually done for us? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.
Right now there are actually gun owners out there defending Republicans where your gun rights are concerned. I can't imagine a greater incidence of delusion. Defending any politician where guns are concerned is sheer folly. They will all surrender your rights, take them, infringe them or just flat out refuse them at any time, for the sake of "political expediency". This instance is all about power, (as are most of them) and its maintenance by the so-called Department of Justice.
John Lott cut straight to the heart of the matter.
Worried about the possibility that a Supreme Court decision supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right could “cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation,” the Department of Justice felt it necessary to head off any restrictions on government power right at the beginning.Politicians crave power. It doesn't matter if they are already ensconced in the halls of power or are currently seeking to be the ultimate power broker in the form of the Presidency. They continuously tell gun owners what we wish to hear. It's long past the time that gun owners woke up to this fact and acted accordingly.
Unfortunately, it may take an uprising by voters to rein in the Justice Department.Unfortunately, Mr. Lott may only be partially correct in his final statement. Voting is unlikely to change things and voting for Republicrats is especially useless.
2nd Amendment, Gunowners, Libertarian, District of Columbia v.Heller,Bush,Politics, Gun Control