NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/01-27-2003/vo19no02_implausible.htm

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/mors071301.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam092104.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/sees082701.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam052104.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/daley121304.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/maye122401.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam091604.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/salv042503.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam052404.shtml

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/07-26-2004/insider/la.htm

The ACLU is a liberal organization and gun rights are hardly that. Protecting 2nd amendment rights isn't something they do. Besides the Joe who wants to keep his assault rifle calling the ACLU sounds like a contradiction to begin with. Saying that the founders are communists sounds like slander even if true. Perhaps everyone today in the ACLU is a hated Red?

Don't forget about the baby blood. The truth about the ACLU is that they drink baby blood. Potentially with a little Ketel One and a celery stalk. And we have horns. They. I mean they. Bastards.

The ACLU is a liberal organization and gun rights are hardly that. Protecting 2nd amendment rights isn't something they do. Besides the Joe who wants to keep his assault rifle calling the ACLU sounds like a contradiction to begin with. Saying that the founders are communists sounds like slander even if true. Perhaps everyone today in the ACLU is a hated Red?

The 2nd Amendment does not even provide for gun ownership. It only allows for the states to form militias.

The 2nd Amendment does not even provide for gun ownership. It only allows for the states to form militias.

But doesn't it say something along the lines of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...etc., etc.?"

But doesn't it say something along the lines of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...etc., etc.?"
didnt you learn about context clues in english?

didnt you learn about context clues in english?

Probably, but I don't remember. ;)

But doesn't it say something along the lines of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...etc., etc.?"

Which could refer to nuclear weapons. The Second Amendment has long since outlived its purpose. We had it in case the British decided to come back for more, and we needed weapons to kill the Indians. The third reason to have guns, is to fight the government if they do the things they've already done, but it's blatantly obvious the only right gun nuts want is the one provided by Amendment 2. So I say take it away, and let them fight for the other nine.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/01-27-2003/vo19no02_implausible.htm

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/mors071301.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam092104.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/sees082701.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam052104.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/daley121304.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/maye122401.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam091604.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/salv042503.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam052404.shtml

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/07-26-2004/insider/la.htm
Shut up; the ACLU is not an Ultra-left organization out to take control of anything; they're just lawyers. Jesus Christ. >_>

One thing about saying that the second amendment was to allow for people to fight against the government in case it did something it was not supposed to do, is that who are you to say that the government can't do what it is doing?

Essentially, if you believe that you have a legitimate right to rebel when you don't agree with the government's interpretation of the Constitution, it opens it up to allowing a revolution if *anyone* believes the government shouldn't be allowed to do what it is doing, from abortion to taxes. Who decides if that person is right? The government that that person is rebelling against by killing U.S. citizens? Do you say it's right if the revolution was successful, because that's only a case of history being written by the victors. Ah whatever. If anyone wants to get in an argument about this, I'll join in, but I don't have much to say on this right now.

Cheers,
The Dictator of Afslavistakistania

Thats really funny! I haven't laughed that hard in ages. I was trying to think of anything I've come across lately that made me laugh that hard and just couldn't think of anything.

But doesn't it say something along the lines of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...etc., etc.?"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I say it comes down to the definition of the word "people".

Which could refer to nuclear weapons. The Second Amendment has long since outlived its purpose. We had it in case the British decided to come back for more, and we needed weapons to kill the Indians. The third reason to have guns, is to fight the government if they do the things they've already done, but it's blatantly obvious the only right gun nuts want is the one provided by Amendment 2. So I say take it away, and let them fight for the other nine.

You know what? The 1st Amendment has outlived its purposes too. Toss it. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't mind the ACLU if they weren't so partisan

Which could refer to nuclear weapons. The Second Amendment has long since outlived its purpose. We had it in case the British decided to come back for more, and we needed weapons to kill the Indians. The third reason to have guns, is to fight the government if they do the things they've already done, but it's blatantly obvious the only right gun nuts want is the one provided by Amendment 2. So I say take it away, and let them fight for the other nine.

The 2nd amendment is also there to allow people to better guard their homes and themselves from criminals or anyone wlse who would do them harm.

So when a criminal, who still has his gun, comes breaking into my house after i've given up my gun because of naive anti-gun folks like you...

hehe

they're SO totalitarian (like all leftists) that they'll defend Rush Limbaugh legally. And fight for the individual's right to say what they want.

It's suddenly feeling like 1984, folks.


:rolleyes:

It's funny to me. Americans say that they have gun rights to defend themselves from tyrannical government. But as the current republican governent grows ever more authoritarian, it seems to me that the guys with the guns would be defending the tyrannical government rather than fighting it. For this reason all liberals, libertarians and moderates must buy guns.

It's funny to me. Americans say that they have gun rights to defend themselves from tyrannical government. But as the current republican governent grows ever more authoritarian, it seems to me that the guys with the guns would be defending the tyrannical government rather than fighting it. For this reason all liberals, libertarians and moderates must buy guns.
Yeah, but the Libertarians tend to be in support of the second ammendment even more than Republicans.

The 2nd amendment is also there to allow people to better guard their homes and themselves from criminals or anyone wlse who would do them harm.

So when a criminal, who still has his gun, comes breaking into my house after i've given up my gun because of naive anti-gun folks like you...

hehe
Never mind how it has been shown that owning a gun doesn't help save your life in the case of a home invasion, and it actually increases your chance of getting killed.

the ACLU does nothing but protect people's rights and freedoms
and yet they come as extremely left-wing
makes you wonder....

I freaking love the ACLU!!!!

I really don't care what your link's say, because thier writers have their heads up thier asses and stuck in the cold war at the same time... I shudder to think how that is possible, but it's still quite true. I mean the Red Scare was last century. I'm also kinda sick of people using "communist" as a derogatory term. People need to get over themselves on this.

Seriously though, WTF are people bitching about the ACLU for anyways? :headbang: Considering that if the ACLU and people who agree with them didn't exist, these people probably wouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion at all.

When I'm a lawyer I will be a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

:sniper: The ACLU wouldn't know what the Bill of Rights was if you slapped them in the face with it. Die commie lefties.....Die :mp5: Also when it says "the right of the people".... that pretty much sums it up. How do you argue with that. Well if you wanted to argue with logic, then F-it. We'll all just have to go out and form militias.... that settles it then. So much for being the most free and democratic peoples on earth.....according to lefties we ought not be able to defend ourselves, property, or family against undo harm. Yea, that sets a great example for the rest of the world to follow....not. Just look at what happened to Australia and England when their firearms got taken away from the legal-owning, law-abiding citizens. The crime sky rocketed.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/01-27-2003/vo19no02_implausible.htm

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/mors071301.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam092104.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/sees082701.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam052104.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/daley121304.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/maye122401.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam091604.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/salv042503.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam052404.shtml

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/07-26-2004/insider/la.htm
I refuse to read anything that refers to the ACLU as communists. Would a communist support changing the Patriot Act to make it more civil-liberty friendly? Does the ACLU mention anything about redistribution of wealth. Do only left-wingers support the ACLU? The answer to all three is NO!

they're SO totalitarian (like all leftists) that they'll defend Rush Limbaugh legally. And fight for the individual's right to say what they want.

Good point. Anybody else here know that the ACLU publicly DEFENDED Rush Limbaugh's right to have his medical records sealed. As much as Limbaugh is a druggie asshole, the ACLU still went out of its way to side with even someone who violently opposes it.

Of course, of course.
it shows just why the ACLU isn't all that great. In principle, they're fantastic. In practice, they are often very frivolous.
They do a lot to get in on cases where they should have been at the start.
(The James Gideon ruling, for example- they sent their lawyers to aid Gideon After the supreme court ruling- and he turned them away)

They're just lawyers. lawyers do frivolous things when there aren't any important things to do.

did rush assault someone from the aclu? I missed the violent episode of his oposition

did rush assault someone from the aclu? I missed the violent episode of his oposition
Violent as in vehement. Not physically abusive. Did I really need to explain that? :rolleyes:

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."

:sniper: The ACLU wouldn't know what the Bill of Rights was if you slapped them in the face with it. Die commie lefties.....Die :mp5: Also when it says "the right of the people".... that pretty much sums it up. How do you argue with that. Well if you wanted to argue with logic, then F-it. We'll all just have to go out and form militias.... that settles it then. So much for being the most free and democratic peoples on earth.....according to lefties we ought not be able to defend ourselves, property, or family against undo harm. Yea, that sets a great example for the rest of the world to follow....not. Just look at what happened to Australia and England when their firearms got taken away from the legal-owning, law-abiding citizens. The crime sky rocketed.

ok
you have one post, and you refreed to the ACLU as "commie lefties"
in other words, you=worthless

Shut up; the ACLU is not an Ultra-left organization out to take control of anything; they're just lawyers. Jesus Christ. >_>

Don't take the Lord's name in vein!

Oh CRAP!! Now the ACLU ill be after me!

No, it'll be George Bush after you for not bowing down and praying to Jesus during the state mandated four prayers a day.

Cheers,

Violent as in vehement. Not physically abusive. Did I really need to explain that? :rolleyes:

Guess so!

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

To bad they don't on many issues

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

show me where in the Constitution regarding seperation fo Church and state? And why are they out to take down such signs like Merry Christmas?

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

The ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) as never ratified by the states! Care to point to equal protection?

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Ok, they do this to a point

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."

Then why did they oppose the Do Not Call List?

No, it'll be George Bush after you for not bowing down and praying to Jesus during the state mandated four prayers a day.

Cheers,

HAHAHA!!! Funny like a crutch.

HAHAHA!!! Funny like a crutch.

Yes, they are funny, aren't they? Or were you being sarcastic? Because I think there's something in the bible against that somewhere, hell, they have something against everyone and everything as long as it's not Christianity (c) Certified!

Cheers,

Never mind how it has been shown that owning a gun doesn't help save your life in the case of a home invasion, and it actually increases your chance of getting killed.

Got proof?

The ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) as never ratified by the states! Care to point to equal protection?

" Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

14th amendment.

ACLU protects rights (except gun rights, but you've got other people to cover that), but yeah, alot of lawsuits are frivolous. But meh.

The ACLU are a bunch of liberal-left fascists, plain and simple. :mad:

The ACLU are a bunch of liberal-left fascists, plain and simple. :mad:

Hardly. They've defended Nazis and they've defended liberals and they've defended conservatives. Get over it.

Clearly the ACLU is composed of fascist communists. Its only logical. :rolleyes:

Never mind how it has been shown that owning a gun doesn't help save your life in the case of a home invasion, and it actually increases your chance of getting killed.


No, it increases the chance of those not knowing how to use a gun being killed. If you want to get a gun for protection, take some classes on it. Most areas have a shooting range as well as people trained to run classes on its use. If you're more interested in finding out about these classes, contact your local sheriff's department, they will probally do tell you where the classes are or tell you when to show up since they run most of them.

I believe in the right to bear arms, though I don't like the idea of a bunch of nuts running around with full auto assualt weapons. Though I have a hard time saying citizens shouldn't have the right to them, what if a revolt came to America, the military could take over in a dictator state. I would rather have the nuts fighting them at that time. I think to have massive assualt weapons should also involve extra classes and licenses. Protect the people, but also protect the people from the nuts.

Never mind how it has been shown that owning a gun doesn't help save your life in the case of a home invasion, and it actually increases your chance of getting killed.

Read More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott.

No, it increases the chance of those not knowing how to use a gun being killed. If you want to get a gun for protection, take some classes on it. Most areas have a shooting range as well as people trained to run classes on its use. If you're more interested in finding out about these classes, contact your local sheriff's department, they will probally do tell you where the classes are or tell you when to show up since they run most of them.

I believe in the right to bear arms, though I don't like the idea of a bunch of nuts running around with full auto assualt weapons. Though I have a hard time saying citizens shouldn't have the right to them, what if a revolt came to America, the military could take over in a dictator state. I would rather have the nuts fighting them at that time. I think to have massive assualt weapons should also involve extra classes and licenses. Protect the people, but also protect the people from the nuts.

Would you then agree to a kind of graded license system (much like we have for cars) for guns?

Semi-automatic would be in a different category from your standard gun. Automatic would be even higher. In each category, you would have to demonstrate basic proficiency with and safety knowledge of the weapon in question (and not be on probation for a violent felony/currently under a restraining order).

No, it increases the chance of those not knowing how to use a gun being killed. If you want to get a gun for protection, take some classes on it. Most areas have a shooting range as well as people trained to run classes on its use. If you're more interested in finding out about these classes, contact your local sheriff's department, they will probally do tell you where the classes are or tell you when to show up since they run most of them.

I believe in the right to bear arms, though I don't like the idea of a bunch of nuts running around with full auto assualt weapons. Though I have a hard time saying citizens shouldn't have the right to them, what if a revolt came to America, the military could take over in a dictator state. I would rather have the nuts fighting them at that time. I think to have massive assualt weapons should also involve extra classes and licenses. Protect the people, but also protect the people from the nuts.
1) the military in this country wouldnt stage a coup, they are too brainwashed
2) the nuts with the guns would be supporting them

they're SO totalitarian (like all leftists) that they'll defend Rush Limbaugh legally.


what the fuck?
how is that totalitarian first of all?
and dont you know that the most left is anarchy?
clearly you know little about political theory; less than your average guy w/ an internet degree in it.
The ACLU are a bunch of liberal-left fascists, plain and simple.
no such thing as a leftist fascist, it's an oxymoron

what the fuck?
how is that totalitarian first of all?
and dont you know that the most left is anarchy?
clearly you know little about political theory; less than your average guy w/ an internet degree in it.
Methinks you missed the sarcasm.

no such thing as a leftist fascist, it's an oxymoron

There is the idea that the spectrum basically loops around on itself. If you go too far right or too far left, it ends up devolving into a fascist state.

No, it increases the chance of those not knowing how to use a gun being killed. If you want to get a gun for protection, take some classes on it. Most areas have a shooting range as well as people trained to run classes on its use. If you're more interested in finding out about these classes, contact your local sheriff's department, they will probally do tell you where the classes are or tell you when to show up since they run most of them.

I believe in the right to bear arms, though I don't like the idea of a bunch of nuts running around with full auto assualt weapons. Though I have a hard time saying citizens shouldn't have the right to them, what if a revolt came to America, the military could take over in a dictator state. I would rather have the nuts fighting them at that time. I think to have massive assualt weapons should also involve extra classes and licenses. Protect the people, but also protect the people from the nuts.

Actually what it increases is the likelihood that what minus a gun would be an argument or maybe a smashed dish turns into a homocide. Training or no, if you're pissed off and a gun is there, there is a greater tendency that it gets used. In point of fact, the more training you have, the more likely you actually kill someone rather than simply wound them.

IIRC, there was a blurb in Time magazine in '99 about it, to the effect that you are 40 times more likely to be killed with your gun than you are to successfully use it to defend yourself against an attacker (in no small measure because of the actual rarity with which crimes in which a gun would be needed are committed).

That being said, it isn't unconstitutional for you to own a gun, and it is unconstitutional to offer a blanket ban on guns (although legislation thereof is permitted according to the Supreme Court). So any such blanket ban is likely to meet with ACLU opposition.

Right there in the 2nd amendment, you see "regulated." This, to me, indicates that it is plausible to remain consistent with the constitution by allowing gun ownership given careful regulation of these weapons. For example, it doesn't do to allow people who have a criminal history to own deadly, finger-of-death weapons. The 2nd amendment is a bit awkward in modern times, but until it has been nullified through proper process, it must be abided by. It is a bit outdated because it was there for the strictly pragmatic purpose of making it possible to quickly organize a civilian militia force in the event that, say, Mexico were to invade and start breaking our shit.

However, there is a process by which amendments can be nullified, and it is highly important for us to go through this process rather than simply pretending that the amendment doesn't exist. If you start pretending that a part of the constitution doesn't exist rather than nullifying it through the proper process, a precedent is set for ignoring other parts of the constitution.

Oh, and the ACLU gets my highest endorsement for protecting us from religious nuts. The religious nuts can't stand this, of course, because one of the highest tenents of their faith is that they have a monopoly on morality. For this reason, there's no way they can possibly understand why it would be wrong to forcefully indoctrinate every schoolchild in the country into Christianity in order to save their souls. Fortunately, Christianity has increasingly taken a bend for monolatrist, pluralist, inclusivist, and ecumenical ideas, so the only people most religious people really dislike are the atheists. Nobody likes a skeptic.

ACLU left-winged? Nope. They're pro-immigrant, and that is in reality quite conservative, believe it or not. They only got a reputation for being left-winged because they defended the Communists from the right-wing thought police back in the day.

There is the idea that the spectrum basically loops around on itself. If you go too far right or too far left, it ends up devolving into a fascist state.
And there's always Alanysism.

" Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

14th amendment.

Know when it a adopted? During Recontruction to allow the former Confederates back into the Union. It deals with BLACKS nothing more.

Again, where is the equal rights amendment! Oh thats correct, there isn't one!