NationStates Jolt Archive

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

About having former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey as a consultant?

Conservative firebrand Bob Barr (former Republican Congressman from GA and leader of the impeachment of Bill Clinton) is a consultant. clicky (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15989&c=101) and clicky (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11449&c=39).

The ACLU has currently defending Rush Limbaugh and formerly worked for Ollie North. The ACLU has worked closely with a number of conservative groups over the years. The ACLU has cooperated frequently with the NRA.

In most of the separation of Church and State cases, major religions organizations -- including major Christian denominations -- have sided with the ACLU.

The ACLU has stood up for the rights of religious groups, including Christians on numerous occasions. They have repeatedly defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

There are scores upon scores of other actions in which the ACLU has defended or cooperated with Conservatives and Christian groups. Here are just a very small sample:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159) (note many other examples of defending Christians given in the artice)
Speech by James Ziglar, conservative and Bush's INS Commissioner, to the Membership Meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=12896&c=256)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU backs students on Confederate shirts (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/confederate.shirts.ap/)
West Virginia School Officials Violated Student’s Rights By Punishing Him Over a T-Shirt, Court Rules (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=18399&c=42)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
Michigan Court Punishes Catholic Man for Refusing Conversion to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16138&c=142)

Here is additional evidence:
ACLU Defends California Artist After Los Angeles Orders Removal of “God Bless America” Mural (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10248&c=42)
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17457&c=42)
ACLU Sues to Protect Free Speech Rights of Anti-Abortion Church Group in Indiana (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86)
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142)
ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8122&c=142)
ACLU of Ohio Will Defend GOP Chairman in Political Yard Sign Case (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16843&c=42)
Connecticut Veteran Sues For Right to Commemorate Fallen War Hero on his Property (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7356&c=42)
Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7777&c=130)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7876&c=139)
ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Protecting Religious Liberty in Prisons (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18363&c=286)
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
ACLU of Georgia Sues City Over Arrest of Political Activist During Fourth of July Celebrations (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=15870&c=86)
ACLU of Nevada Asks Court to End Ban of Book Critical of the IRS (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12525&c=83)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159)
ACLU Says Texas Police Violated Art Gallery Owner’s Freedom of Expression - Police Forced Artist to Cover Classical Image of Nude ‘Eve’ (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17297&c=83)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
Last-Minute ACLU Appeal Allows Exiled Cubane Activist To Take His Anti-Castro Message to the Skies (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7143&c=86)
Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14162&c=29)

ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE CANARD THAT THE ACLU IS JUST LEFTIST OR ANTI-CHRISTIAN!!!! :headbang:

(donning my X-Treme Righty(tm) Halloween costume,)

Yeah, but when do they ever protect the rights of Christians!? Huh? Answer that, Mr big lawyer-type dude!

(donning my X-Treme Righty(tm) Halloween costume,)

Yeah, but when do they ever protect the rights of Christians!? Huh? Answer that, Mr big lawyer-type dude!

Um, look at the list Mr. X-Treme Righty.

Um, look at the list Mr. X-Treme Righty.
You're missing the point: the fact that they've stopped the Klan from hanging blacks is proof that not only are they zealously anti conservative and anti Christian, they also want to see your wife raped by negros.

Um, look at the list Mr. X-Treme Righty.

That was the whole point. Sheesh. How can you not see that my post was intended as a joke when I'm saying I'm donning an X-Treme Righty(tm) Halloween costume?

(My respect for Cat-Tribe just lowered from 9.5 to 9.)

Funny, I don't see any cooperation with the NRA, or any pro-Second Amendment work in that list.

Funny, I don't see any cooperation with the NRA, or any pro-Second Amendment work in that list.

Here's an idea. How about you google for ACLU and NRA as I just did? Hmmm, even on just the first page I've seen several references.

Want me to hold your hand while you do it for yourself?

Here's an idea. How about you google for ACLU and NRA as I just did? Hmmm, even on just the first page I've seen several references.

Want me to hold your hand while you do it for yourself?

I can google-fu as well as the next person. The double standard you propose, however, where I have to provide links for every one of my arguments, and those who are opposed have no such responsibility (placing it on me to google it), is unacceptable.

Why didn't Cat provide the links?

Funny, I don't see any cooperation with the NRA, or any pro-Second Amendment work in that list.

The NRA and ACLU have cooperated on many projects, I thought you would know that. I'll present evidence if necessary, but that is a side-point at best.

You also know the ACLU is neutral on the Second Amendment. You won't find them doing work on either side of gun control issues. And you know damn well why their being neutral is more than justified by the caselaw.

Sad that you would equate being pro-gun as the litmus test for not being anti-conservative or anti-Christian.

That was the whole point. Sheesh. How can you not see that my post was intended as a joke when I'm saying I'm donning an X-Treme Righty(tm) Halloween costume?

(My respect for Cat-Tribe just lowered from 9.5 to 9.)

thought he did get it. :confused:

The NRA and ACLU have cooperated on many projects, I thought you would know that. I'll present evidence if necessary, but that is a side-point at best.

You also know the ACLU is neutral on the Second Amendment. You won't find them doing work on either side of gun control issues. And you know damn well why their being neutral is more than justified by the caselaw.

Sad that you would equate being pro-gun as the litmus test for not being anti-conservative or anti-Christian.

Pro-gun makes perfect sense for being a litmus test for being pro-conservative.

It has nothing to do with Christians.

Case law can change, especially with "activist" judges of either the left or the right. If that weren't true, then people like Chuck Schumer wouldn't care who was on the Supreme Court.

Funny, I don't see any cooperation with the NRA, or any pro-Second Amendment work in that list.
Wasn't the second amendment only introduced because there wasn't a standing army at that point in history? Weird how the NRA tend not to talk about that. To be fair, a few of them probably are members of the armed forces.

You also know the ACLU is neutral on the Second Amendment.
Shouldn't they support it? It is in your constitution.

Wasn't the second amendment only introduced because there wasn't a standing army at that point in history? Weird how the NRA tend not to talk about that. To be fair, a few of them probably are members of the armed forces.

Maybe you need to read up on American history. That is not why it was introduced.

Outcome stuns NRA, ACLU (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/11/outcome_stuns_nra_aclu/)
Strange Bedfellows: The ACLU meets The NRA (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/03132003)
ACLU, NRA, Others Call for Investigation of Feds (http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/aclu.html)
Strange Bedfellows: What the ACLU and the NRA have in common (http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=303_0_2_0_C)
Kenneth Starr Joins Leaders from NRA, Americans United and ACLU to Find Common Ground on Civil Liberties (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=16070&c=255)
Senate Panel Approves Asset Forfeiture Reform (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=7887&c=113)


Is this sufficient in the lack of any evidence to the contrary?

thought he did get it. :confused:

Even so, a 9 rating on the respect-o-meter is nothing to sneeze at.

http://www.aclutx.org/files/ACLUTX%20Dispatch%2009-2005.pdf

The ACLU of Texas profoundly affected the overall direction of the 79th Texas
Legislature in favor of individual liberty. Our volunteer-led Legislative Team worked in coalition with other organizations—from the National Rifle Association to the Restorative Justice Ministries Network—to pass common sense legislation where our interests align. Texas Monthly recognized that when it handed the ACLU and the NRA its “Strangest Bedfellows” award for our work to pass consent search legislation.

Thank you Equus, for posting the link where others would not.

this thread brings up a good point that is often ignored by conservatives: that the ACLU often does defend them, most notably (IMO) on free speech issues. As a center-right kind of guy, I see the ACLU as often self-parodying, but ultimately a necessary group. I think its undeniable that they tend to favor cases involving the left, and can't think of them as a completely nonpartisan organization. However that may be, and as imperfect as they are, it is better for us all that they exist.

I can google-fu as well as the next person. The double standard you propose, however, where I have to provide links for every one of my arguments, and those who are opposed have no such responsibility (placing it on me to google it), is unacceptable.

Why didn't Cat provide the links?

Usually links are needed for something that requires more than 2 keywords and a single page of scanning. Links will be provided anyway, I'm sure.

Shouldn't they support it? It is in your constitution.

Again, this is a side issue.

The question is what interpretation to support. The ACLU is neutral between the interpretations.

If the ACLU supported the prevailing interpretation -- that the Second Amendment protects the rights of states to armed militias and not the individual right to possess a firearm -- Sierra BHTP would go apeshit.

Maybe you need to read up on American history. That is not why it was introduced.
That is why it was introduced, in fact. There might have been a small standing army at the time, but the right to bear arms was added to the constitution as it was feared this wouldn't be adequete to defend the country in the event of a war.

Outcome stuns NRA, ACLU (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/11/outcome_stuns_nra_aclu/)
Strange Bedfellows: The ACLU meets The NRA (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/03132003)
ACLU, NRA, Others Call for Investigation of Feds (http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/aclu.html)
Strange Bedfellows: What the ACLU and the NRA have in common (http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=303_0_2_0_C)
Kenneth Starr Joins Leaders from NRA, Americans United and ACLU to Find Common Ground on Civil Liberties (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=16070&c=255)
Senate Panel Approves Asset Forfeiture Reform (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=7887&c=113)


Is this sufficient in the lack of any evidence to the contrary?


It is. I wonder why:

a) you mentioned it in your first post with no links
b) you mentioned it in your first post if you think it's irrelevant

It actually is irrelevant to Christianity. But a core conservative issue.

I wonder why no one at the hearings asked Roberts if he was a member of the NRA. He's a life member.

That is why it was introduced, in fact. There might have been a small standing army at the time, but the right to bear arms was added to the constitution as it was feared this wouldn't be adequete to defend the country in the event of a war.

WRONG WRONG WRONG.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

The English republican views on the relationship between arms and democracy profoundly influenced the views of the founding fathers.[122] Both the Federalists, those promoting a strong central government, and the Antifederalists, those believing that liberties including the right of self-rule would be protected best by preservation of local autonomy, agreed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked.[123]

The first discussion in which these views were articulated occurred in the context of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution concerning the powers of Congress to raise a standing army and its power over the militia. As initially proposed, Congress was to be provided the power to raise armies.[124] Objections were raised that there was no check against standing armies in time of peace.[125] The debate focused on how to avoid the dangers of a standing army; there was no dispute that a standing army posed a significant threat to the liberty of the people.[126] The dilemma was that some type of national army would be necessary in time of war, but the results of waiting until war occurred to raise a national army could be disastrous.[127]

The solution adopted was two-fold. First, Congress would have the power to raise an army but no appropriation of money for that use could be for more (p.1023)than two years.[128] Because the people controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate, and Congress controlled the purse, the people were given an effective check against the dangers of a standing army. The second check against the dangers of a standing army was provided by the existence of the militia. Again, however, the necessity of providing for the common defense had to be satisfied while guarding against the national government's abuse of power.

If the danger of a standing army was to be limited, the militia, which was then under the control of the states, must be available to meet national emergencies until an adequate standing army could be raised. Thus, the national government needed the power to call upon the militia. Conversely, the existence of a militia independent of federal control was deemed necessary as a check on the standing army which Congress was authorized to raise.[129] The resolution was to provide Congress with the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia and to govern such parts as may be called into federal service, but to reserve to the states the appointment of officers and actual training of the militia.[130] The drafters of this particular language hastened to point out that the power to organize, arm, and discipline was intended only to allow Congress to prescribe the proportion of men to officers, specify the kind and size of arms, ensure that men were armed in fact either by themselves, the states, or by Congress, and to prescribe exercises.[131] The States were to be in control of the militia by reason of the power to appoint officers and provide for the actual training.[132] The national government would be in control of the militia only when the militia was called out for national service and, even then, would have to rely on the State appointed officers to execute its orders.


By the way, the militia - the unorganized militia - exists as a matter of US Law today. It is every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45.

The militia is NOT the army - as you can see. It is the second defense against a standing army, in the eyes of the founding fathers.

Or, as Noah Webster in one of the first Federalist pamphlets states:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

Or James Madison, at the same time:

To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops .... Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Fine. So if the ACLU works with conservative and christian cases and even works with the NRA, but remains neutral between the 2 theories regarding the intent of the 2nd Amendment....that means they are still hopelessly biased agains conservative concerns?

Just trying to see how all this connects, or if it's just a subject-changing rant.

Gymoor, I would incline towards the latter :)

I think that the ACLU is much like the mainstream media: there is little overt institutional bias towards the left, but the individuals who make up the organization are heavily left of center, so this tends to colour their outlook and the issues they find most compelling and important. No conspiracy, at least almost never.

Conservatives:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Liberals:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Which side does the ACLU fall in line with?

You're missing the point: the fact that they've stopped the Klan from hanging blacks is proof that not only are they zealously anti conservative and anti Christian, they also want to see your wife raped by negros.

I seriously hope that that was sarcastic

Fine. So if the ACLU works with conservative and christian cases and even works with the NRA, but remains neutral between the 2 theories regarding the intent of the 2nd Amendment....that means they are still hopelessly biased agains conservative concerns?

Just trying to see how all this connects, or if it's just a subject-changing rant.
It seems to be a subject changing rant, though to be fair it also seems I've missed the references to armed civillians providing a check on the authoritarian military. (It seems the people who thought that one up weren't far wrong, either. Just look at New Orleans...)

I seriously hope that that was sarcastic
Of course it was sarcasm. The Klan tend to defend their activities in a more roundabout fashion these days.

The Second Amendment has been and should always be the absolute guarentee of an armed citizenry to violently overthrow the government should it ever be necessary. The right to bear arms is what absolutely guarentees all other rights. As read all gun control should be unconstitutional, In the past I used to contribute to the ALCU and if they became more ardent supports of the 2nd Amendment I will contribute again.

Wasn't the second amendment only introduced because there wasn't a standing army at that point in history? Weird how the NRA tend not to talk about that. To be fair, a few of them probably are members of the armed forces.

Conservatives:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Liberals:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Which side does the ACLU fall in line with?

Did you scan the links?

The Second Amendment has been and should always be the absolute guarentee of an armed citizenry to violently overthrow the government should it ever be necessary. The right to bear arms is what absolutely guarentees all other rights. As read all gun control should be unconstitutional, In the past I used to contribute to the ALCU and if they became more ardent supports of the 2nd Amendment I will contribute again.
Right. It appears my suspicion that the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to bear assault rifles or rocket launchers is founded on misinformation. Oh well, one lives and learns.

Most of those were free speech campaign finance issues not 2nd Amendment.


Outcome stuns NRA, ACLU (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/11/outcome_stuns_nra_aclu/)
Strange Bedfellows: The ACLU meets The NRA (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/03132003)
ACLU, NRA, Others Call for Investigation of Feds (http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/aclu.html)
Strange Bedfellows: What the ACLU and the NRA have in common (http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=303_0_2_0_C)
Kenneth Starr Joins Leaders from NRA, Americans United and ACLU to Find Common Ground on Civil Liberties (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=16070&c=255)
Senate Panel Approves Asset Forfeiture Reform (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=7887&c=113)


Is this sufficient in the lack of any evidence to the contrary?

If we truely followed the spirit of the 2nd Amendment every adult male of sound body and mind who was not a felon would have military grade weapons in there home.


Right. It appears my suspicion that the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to bear assault rifles or rocket launchers is founded on misinformation. Oh well, one lives and learns.

Most of those were free speech campaign finance issues not 2nd Amendment.

Yes, but if they were completely partisan, would they work with the NRA on the NRA's free speech issues...thereby helping the NRA get their word out...thereby assisting the NRA's view of what the 2nd amendment means?

If we truely followed the spirit of the 2nd Amendment every adult male of sound body and mind who was not a felon would have military grade weapons in there home.
That seems to have been established. Sadly, as an English liberal I tend to assume that if somebody has a sub machine gun or an assault rifle in the house, it's because they're planning a bank job, but given my misinformation about the purpose of the second amendment, it seems that a hunting rifle or shotgun and/or a pistol under the bed just doesn't cut it.

The right to bear arms is what absolutely guarentees all other rights.

Wow .... you sound like one of those Afghani warlords .... does the word "Junta" come up a lot in your conversations with friends?

That seems to have been established. Sadly, as an English liberal I tend to assume that if somebody has a sub machine gun or an assault rifle in the house, it's because they're planning a bank job, but given my misinformation about the purpose of the second amendment, it seems that a hunting rifle or shotgun and/or a pistol under the bed just doesn't cut it.

Ownership of submachineguns and fully automatic weapons is fairly well restricted in the US - since 1934.

Since 1934, none of the registered fully automatic weapons has been used in a crime.

There is precious little, other than a more underpowered cartridge and a military look, to distinguish an assault rifle from a hunting rifle.

Most hunting rifles (bolt action) in the US are far more deadly, far more accurate, and far longer ranged than any assault rifle ever built. That's why the Marine Corps and Army sniper rifles are built on the commercial Remington 700 action - a hunting rifle.

Most gun banners in the US want to ban ALL guns.

If you read more of Malcom X than that little quote of yours pehaps you would understand.


Wow .... you sound like one of those Afghani warlords .... does the word "Junta" come up a lot in your conversations with friends?

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE CANARD THAT THE ACLU IS JUST LEFTIST OR ANTI-CHRISTIAN!!!! :headbang:

I very much agree, TCT. I get so tired of my parent's complains about the ACLU. I think I may just send my mom an email with those links, and maybe she'll realize that the ACLU is a government watchdog group defending our liberties without prejudice.

If you read more of Malcom X than that little quote of yours pehaps you would understand.

Malcolm X never said anything about the right to bear arms being the only guarantee of freedom. As a matter of fact, it isn't.

Malcolm X was a very peaceful man who knew that he had to fight aggressively to gain certain rights in the United States. He never once used a gun to do it. His only run in with the Right to Bear Arms was at a podium at 3:10 pm, February 21, 1965.

If we truely followed the spirit of the 2nd Amendment every adult male of sound body and mind who was not a felon would have military grade weapons in there home.
Mind showing us that the 'spirit' of the amendment is to do so?

It is. I wonder why:

a) you mentioned it in your first post with no links
b) you mentioned it in your first post if you think it's irrelevant

It actually is irrelevant to Christianity. But a core conservative issue.

I wonder why no one at the hearings asked Roberts if he was a member of the NRA. He's a life member.
OMG he missed linking in his first exhaustive post ... then provides you with a wealth of info and you are still bitching about it not being in the first post?

Conservatives:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Liberals:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Which side does the ACLU fall in line with?
The side of liberty, as their name would imply!

Ownership of submachineguns and fully automatic weapons is fairly well restricted in the US - since 1934.

Since 1934, none of the registered fully automatic weapons has been used in a crime.

There is precious little, other than a more underpowered cartridge and a military look, to distinguish an assault rifle from a hunting rifle.

Most hunting rifles (bolt action) in the US are far more deadly, far more accurate, and far longer ranged than any assault rifle ever built. That's why the Marine Corps and Army sniper rifles are built on the commercial Remington 700 action - a hunting rifle.

Most gun banners in the US want to ban ALL guns.
I'd imagine if you're planning to do something that could involve shooting somebody, you're not going to register your gun, though.
The people I know who are into guns say the same thing about rifles, to be honest. I always thought the main difference between hunting rifles and the military ones was the fact the army ones are automatics (which is why they need a lighter bullet and less powder), though.
That strikes me as a little unreasonable. I'm dubious about people wanting a machine pistol or an antitank rifle regardless of what the constitution says about the matter, but I can't see why somebody wanting a pistol in the house for self defence or a rifle or shotgun for hunting should be a problem.

Start by reading the "Federalist Papers" and the read what the Founding Fathers said.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Get the point ?

Mind showing us that the 'spirit' of the amendment is to do so?

Is this a thread about the ACLU or "I should totally be able to own a tank?"

I guess when you recieve a hardcore bitch-slap it's hard to get oriented.

Is this a thread about the ACLU or "I should totally be able to own a tank?"

I guess when you recieve a hardcore bitch-slap it's hard to get oriented.

I should be able to own a tank. And I would try to buy one if they weren't such gas-guzzlers. ;)

I should be able to own a tank. And I would try to buy one if they weren't such gas-guzzlers. ;)
My joke as I'll concieved since you can own a tank, just not one that fires.

You could always get one of those Ferret scout tanks and then convert it to vegetable oil, paint the camoflauge all rainbow colors, replace the stars with peace signs and drive it around. That would rule. The Hippie Tank, 40mm of Love and Peace!!!


(yep, I know nothing of cannons and grabbed that number out of my ass. I'm not a military fetishist.)

Start by reading the "Federalist Papers" and the read what the Founding Fathers said.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Get the point ?
Sigh. Want to know what's funny? Shays' Rebellion.

My joke as I'll concieved since you can own a tank, just not one that fires.

You could always get one of those Ferret scout tanks and then convert it to vegetable oil, paint the camoflauge all rainbow colors, replace the stars with peace signs and drive it around. That would rule. The Hippie Tank, 40mm of Love and Peace!!!

That would be freaking hilarious! :D

(yep, I know nothing of cannons and grabbed that number out of my ass. I'm not a military fetishist.)

Here's some reading to enhance your knowledge.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

How is it funny? If Shay's farmers were better armed perhaps they would have succeeded?


Sigh. Want to know what's funny? Shays' Rebellion.

How is it funny? If Shay's farmers were better armed perhaps they would have succeeded?
You do know what Shays' rebellion led to, right?

You do know what Shays' rebellion led to, right?
I know! Probably should let him guess, though.

Outcome stuns NRA, ACLU (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/11/outcome_stuns_nra_aclu/)
Strange Bedfellows: The ACLU meets The NRA (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/03132003)
ACLU, NRA, Others Call for Investigation of Feds (http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/aclu.html)
Strange Bedfellows: What the ACLU and the NRA have in common (http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=303_0_2_0_C)
Kenneth Starr Joins Leaders from NRA, Americans United and ACLU to Find Common Ground on Civil Liberties (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=16070&c=255)
Senate Panel Approves Asset Forfeiture Reform (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=7887&c=113)


Is this sufficient in the lack of any evidence to the contrary?

You just want evidence to the contrary ?

Look up The United States Vs Miller where the ACLU declared itself officially "neutral" on the issue of gun control, where it was argued that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

I also found this position humerous (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11243) Against Christianity ?? no I say :rolleyes:

As well an organization claiming to be in defense of all american liberties the ACLU takes position in favor of Affirmative action especially in cases of school admissions. Here a position which favors one (usually underqualified) American over another based on Race (a position which is racist in its own merit). How can we fight racisim with racisim some may question.

Another interesting yet humerous one (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44973) An endorsement of religion to fund a program which inspires abstinence. No.. the ACLU does not wage a war against Christians :rolleyes:

not against Chirstians (http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=2874)

Is Christmas not even Safe T_T (http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=2227)

The sources maybe skewed of course.. but they are reaidly avalible on a host of differet sources so this is just for simplicities sake and to make a point. The ACLU picks and chooses which liberities, and whose liberties they will defend, and do not even follow the interpreations of the constiution as given by the Supreme court but rather follow their own far more left leaning open ended interpretations

A call for a strong federal government and the ratification of the Consitution?

You do know what Shays' rebellion led to, right?

A call for a strong federal government and the ratification of the Constitution?
This might tax your reasoning skills a bit, but what are the odds that a convention called in part because of farmers running around with guns would explicitly allow such a thing to be an unalienable right, instead of only ensuring that state militias could have guns (rather, preventing congress from banning the state militias from having guns)?

I also found this position humerous (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11243) Against Christianity ?? no I say :rolleyes:

Would "against religion in general" be more acceptable to you?

I don't think they are against Christianity or religion in general. They aren't trying to abolish religion from our land are they (that is something I would never support)? They are trying to abolish any government endorsements of religion; I wholeheartedly support that, and they represent a huge number of other people who support it as well.

Conservatives:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Liberals:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Which side does the ACLU fall in line with?


Which side implies assaults on civil liberties and which side implies defense of civil liberties?

The fact that american 'leftists' happen to, generally, be in favor of defending and expanding civil liberties does not imply that the ACLU is leftist.

The sources maybe skewed of course..
Dude...

While the ACLU has been consistent in its support for liberals it has been rather inconsistent in its support for conservatives. Though in clear cases where the conservatives have been wronged they often go to their aid, which I aplaud them for. But they still have a political agenda. If you don't believe so I would like to direct you to the most reliable source on the matter.

www.aclu.org

I would assume, though have no evidence for this, that they simply don't come to the aid of conservatives in need as often as liberals in need. I mostly make this assumption based on the fact that most of the cases they seem to be fighting are on the behalf of liberals. Though one could argue that liberals are more often discriminated against, but this isn't true from my experience.

Anyway, there are a few examples of them being anti-Christian (again not consistantly) but those are hard to find so I'll post them if I don't get bored looking. One thing that is easy to find is their radical left stance on abortion. Not only are they radically pro-choice, but they often oppose the free speech rights of abortion protestors.

While the ACLU has been consistent in its support for liberals it has been rather inconsistent in its support for conservatives. Though in clear cases where the conservatives have been wronged they often go to their aid, which I aplaud them for. But they still have a political agenda. If you don't believe so I would like to direct you to the most reliable source on the matter.

www.aclu.org

I would assume, though have no evidence for this, that they simply don't come to the aid of conservatives in need as often as liberals in need. I mostly make this assumption based on the fact that most of the cases they seem to be fighting are on the behalf of liberals. Though one could argue that liberals are more often discriminated against, but this isn't true from my experience.

Anyway, there are a few examples of them being anti-Christian (again not consistantly) but those are hard to find so I'll post them if I don't get bored looking. One thing that is easy to find is their radical left stance on abortion. Not only are they radically pro-choice, but they often oppose the free speech rights of abortion protestors.

Of course the ACLU have a political agenda: civil liberties. And why would they side with liberals more than conservatives? Seems pretty simple to me. Liberals believe in civil liberties, at least on social issues. Many strands of conservatism believe in restricting liberties that they disagree with, or are more willing to restrict liberties to combat drugs, terrorism or whatever the bogeyman of the week is. The ACLU supports conservatives when their agenda involves civil liberties, such as the NRA and Christians who are denied the right to personal expression. I'm pretty sceptical about your claim that they oppose the free speech rights of pro-lifers.

Wasn't the second amendment only introduced because there wasn't a standing army at that point in history? Weird how the NRA tend not to talk about that. To be fair, a few of them probably are members of the armed forces.

You're somewhat right on that one.... However, a "standing army" is still not strictly constitutional even if we presently have one.... Technically, we should not; congress uses a loophole to fund them in the first place...

You're somewhat right on that one.... However, a "standing army" is still not strictly constitutional even if we presently have one.... Technically, we should not; congress uses a loophole to fund them in the first place...
Provide for the common defense. Don't start.

Conservatives:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Liberals:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Which side does the ACLU fall in line with?

I can answer that!

The ACLU defends the right of women seeking abortions..... The ACLU also defends the right of anti-abortionists to protest against it.... So on that they are on both sides....

In the area of Same-Sex marriage, it's far less clear where the ACLU will end up... So, I'll reserve judgement on that one...

On the "God" issue, they are more in line with "Liberals"... And I agree, generally the term "God" had no place or purpose for being on either.

On the Terrorist issue, I'd say they are more in line with liberals.

On pornography concerns they have swung both ways...

In the area of Same-Sex marriage, it's far less clear where the ACLU will end up... So, I'll reserve judgement on that one...


Well, if they're in favour of civil liberties there's no way they can be in favour of certain rights being given to heterosexuals but not homosexuals. If marriage was a private thing administered only by churches it might be acceptable to limit it to the church's beliefs, but not while it is a legal status.

Conservatives:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Liberals:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Which side does the ACLU fall in line with?
Yes, you're right. Because these are the only issues liberals and coservatives differ on.

The point of this thread still stands. The ACLU sides with civil liberties only, whether your left, right or centre they'll defend you.

"I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to death you're right to say it" somes them up well.

You seem to forget him urging Black Americans to form gun clubs?


Malcolm X never said anything about the right to bear arms being the only guarantee of freedom. As a matter of fact, it isn't.

Malcolm X was a very peaceful man who knew that he had to fight aggressively to gain certain rights in the United States. He never once used a gun to do it. His only run in with the Right to Bear Arms was at a podium at 3:10 pm, February 21, 1965.

You seem to forget him urging Black Americans to form gun clubs?

He never actually did that. That was propoganda and lies told by White America to bring Malcolm's message down.

Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik) never once encouraged gun ownership.

Maybe you should learn a little more about him before trying to bring him into your cause.

The Ballot or the Bullet 3 April 1964 (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/malcolmxballot.htm)

The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guarenteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob. -- Malcolm X, in Malcolm X at 337, J. Clarke ed. (New York, N.Y., 1969)



It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law. -- Malcolm X, March 12, 1964








He never actually did that. That was propoganda and lies told by White America to bring Malcolm's message down.

Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik) never once encouraged gun ownership.

Maybe you should learn a little more about him before trying to bring him into your cause.

The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guarenteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob. -- Malcolm X, in Malcolm X at 337, J. Clarke ed. (New York, N.Y., 1969)



It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law. -- Malcolm X, March 12, 1964


Ok ... that's nice and all ... but you've attributed quotes by Huey Newton (Black Panthers) to Malcolm X. You should probably check your internet sources more carefully.

Matter of fact, maybe you should study Brother Malcolm a little more carefully.

Have you read the Ballot or the Bullet speech?


Ok ... that's nice and all ... but you've attributed quotes by Huey Newton (Black Panthers) to Malcolm X. You should probably check your internet sources more carefully.

Matter of fact, maybe you should study Brother Malcolm a little more carefully.

Have you read the Ballot or the Bullet speech?

Yes, of course ... have you?

You really should read this (http://www.walterlippmann.com/mx-nyt.html) Yes, of course ... have you?

The NRA and ACLU have cooperated on many projects, I thought you would know that. I'll present evidence if necessary, but that is a side-point at best.

You also know the ACLU is neutral on the Second Amendment. You won't find them doing work on either side of gun control issues. And you know damn well why their being neutral is more than justified by the caselaw.

Official ACLU statement on the 2nd A.

Gun Control

March 4, 2002




Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"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."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."


U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

Source (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25)

Just for the record, I strongly disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of the holding in the Miller case - it was the lack of evidence regarding the type of weapon involved that was the determinative factor, not the "possession and use" of the weapon that mattered. I would note that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals also disagrees with the the ACLU's position and I find the ommission of their opinion on the issue to be striking, particularly in light of the 3rd and 9th Circuit's opinions that take the opposite position and create a clear split in the circuits. I also think that the SCOTUS is afraid to tackle the issue for some reason.

Also, Morton-Grove is "the most important case" only to those who believe a refusal to grant cert. is tantamount to a SCOTUS approval of a lower court ruling. People who understand the system know that just because cert. was denied, doesn't mean shit about the Supreme's views on the merits of the case. I will agree the Supremes routinely deny cert. on 2nd Amendment cases and I wish they had taken up Morton Grove, but their refusal to do so doesn't mean they agree with it.

Wrong person. Wrong Quote.

Thomas Jefferson, maybe you heard of him? Read what he Madison and Adams wrote about guns.


This might tax your reasoning skills a bit, but what are the odds that a convention called in part because of farmers running around with guns would explicitly allow such a thing to be an unalienable right, instead of only ensuring that state militias could have guns (rather, preventing congress from banning the state militias from having guns)?

Provide for the common defense. Don't start.

"Provide for the common defense" =/= "Standing Army during peacetime" Perhapse you should continue past the first part of Section 8... (most notably the 12th...) [You also might note that Section 8 clearly delineates a difference between "Army" and "Militia", and "Navy" and "Militia"; as does USC 10-13, My state Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 13) , and COV 44-1...

You seem to forget him urging Black Americans to form gun clubs?

Well, Malcom's Message has been horribly twisted since the Nation of Islam had him killed when he left the group after returning on his pilgrimage from Mecca (he became a Sunni, and Elijah Muhammed had him killed because he no longer believed in Black Supremecy, but rather began preaching equality.... Did not sit well with the Nation of Islam and their would-be-king Elijah...)

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."


Which puts a hitch in the idea of "Federal Gun Control" which is what is occuring now.... Though it leaves state gun-control in place (the militia's belong to, and are regulated by the states, and composed of citizens of the state)...

Would "against religion in general" be more acceptable to you?

No actually... This an organization which is suppose to be protecting our liberties, one of which from the same amendment they are suppose to champion is that of freedom to practice religion. Especially on the link you qouted, where a cross was found in a STATE seal. THe first amdendment prohibits federal authorities from establishing a national religion.... but does not prohibit those STATE authorities. The appearance of a most indisguiashable cross (not associated with any particular religion) violates no civil liberties as defined by the constitution, but remains a mark of our culture.

I find this particular stance insulting to say the least. As much as the ACLU would like to rewrite history, religion has played a vital role in the formation of our ideas and foundations. And one cannot deny those elements within our culture and our government being a natural extension of that culture cannot be denied from expressing them as well!

Right. It appears my suspicion that the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to bear assault rifles or rocket launchers is founded on misinformation. Oh well, one lives and learns.

On that note, I could see some of where you are coming from. The truth of the matter is the beleif among many that should an unjust government form, it is the right of the citizenry to overthrow that government, destroy it, trample it and end its existance.

The 2nd Ammendmant was put in place to guarentee that no dictator could ever come to power in the US, unopposed and manage to supplant the will if the people. If the voice of the public cannot be heard through the other methods of the constitution and of the US, then it is the right, and essential duty of the people to follow the tradition laid down by the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, and the soldiers of the Continental Army at the battle of monmouth and rise against the tyranical regime that threatens their "Life, liberty and persuit of hapiness."

And that is my stance on the 2nd ammendmant in a nutshell.

I always took it as a message of extreme self defense....a 1960's version of "Don't tread on me" , more like "Don't tread on me ...or else!"

I think of Malcolm X as a modern Jefferson.


Well, Malcom's Message has been horribly twisted since the Nation of Islam had him killed when he left the group after returning on his pilgrimage from Mecca (he became a Sunni, and Elijah Muhammed had him killed because he no longer believed in Black Supremecy, but rather began preaching equality.... Did not sit well with the Nation of Islam and their would-be-king Elijah...)

No actually... This an organization which is suppose to be protecting our liberties, one of which from the same amendment they are suppose to champion is that of freedom to practice religion. Especially on the link you qouted, where a cross was found in a STATE seal. THe first amdendment prohibits federal authorities from establishing a national religion.... but does not prohibit those STATE authorities. The appearance of a most indisguiashable cross (not associated with any particular religion) violates no civil liberties as defined by the constitution, but remains a mark of our culture.

The 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Try again.

Thomas Jefferson, maybe you heard of him? Read what he Madison and Adams wrote about guns.
Three founding fathers a continental congress does not make.

"Provide for the common defense" =/= "Standing Army during peacetime" Perhapse you should continue past the first part of Section 8... (most notably the 12th...) [You also might note that Section 8 clearly delineates a difference between "Army" and "Militia", and "Navy" and "Militia"; as does USC 10-13, My state Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 13) , and COV 44-1...
What you think it means doesn't matter. It's constitutional to have a standing army.

Three founding fathers a continental congress does not make.
You support gun control? Get real! Most places with strong gun control have higher gun crime rates than places without.

Of course the ACLU have a political agenda: civil liberties. And why would they side with liberals more than conservatives? Seems pretty simple to me. Liberals believe in civil liberties, at least on social issues. Many strands of conservatism believe in restricting liberties that they disagree with, or are more willing to restrict liberties to combat drugs, terrorism or whatever the bogeyman of the week is.
Indeed. I don't see much of a problem with them appearing anti-conservative. Of course they will when conservatives continue to oppose civil liberties. Now the charge that they are anti-Christian is trash IMO.

They also support child molesters (*cough* NAMBLA *cough*)

They also support child molesters (*cough* NAMBLA *cough*)
I would let someone better suited handle this, but I think that people who use cough tags are goofy. Come on, folks-it's a text medium and how long ago did Top Gun or even Wayne's World come out? Just a general plea to the world, give the cough tag (here and in life) a rest-it was marginal at best at it's inseption, now it just makes you look like a goon.

To the point, they support free speech and the practice there of. They did not support NAMBLA's mission, rather NAMBLA's right to talk about thier mission, because free speech has to protect unpopular speech or it isn't really free.

They also support child molesters (*cough* NAMBLA *cough*)
That is not the entire truth.
They did not support NAMBLA's claim that they should be allowed to have sex with young boys.
What they supported was NAMBLA's right to free speech.
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86

EDIT:
I see CTOAN has beaten me.

You support gun control? Get real! Most places with strong gun control have higher gun crime rates than places without.

Thanks for telling me what I support. For your information, I'm actually anti-gun control, but contrary to what most people believe, no right to bear arms exists in the constitution for the people. The right to bear arms refers to the state militias.

No actually... This an organization which is suppose to be protecting our liberties, one of which from the same amendment they are suppose to champion is that of freedom to practice religion. Especially on the link you qouted, where a cross was found in a STATE seal. THe first amdendment prohibits federal authorities from establishing a national religion.... but does not prohibit those STATE authorities. The appearance of a most indisguiashable cross (not associated with any particular religion) violates no civil liberties as defined by the constitution, but remains a mark of our culture.

I find this particular stance insulting to say the least. As much as the ACLU would like to rewrite history, religion has played a vital role in the formation of our ideas and foundations. And one cannot deny those elements within our culture and our government being a natural extension of that culture cannot be denied from expressing them as well!

*sigh*

1. The ACLU is not anti-religion. They are for free exercise of religion and against the government establishment of religion -- per the First Amendment.

2. As for your state/local argument, I've explained to you before the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)). The restictions against an establishment of religion apply to all levels of government. Your argument is simply based from deliberate ignorance. If your theory were true, a state could also ban newspapers or free speech because the First Amendment only says that Congress can't do those things.

3. A cross is "not associated with any particular religion"? You must be fucking kidding me.

4. Your problem isn't with the ACLU. Your problem is with the First Amendment and with the Founding Fathers that created the wall of separation of Church and State.

Official ACLU statement on the 2nd A.


Source (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25)

Just for the record, I strongly disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of the holding in the Miller case - it was the lack of evidence regarding the type of weapon involved that was the determinative factor, not the "possession and use" of the weapon that mattered. I would note that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals also disagrees with the the ACLU's position and I find the ommission of their opinion on the issue to be striking, particularly in light of the 3rd and 9th Circuit's opinions that take the opposite position and create a clear split in the circuits. I also think that the SCOTUS is afraid to tackle the issue for some reason.

Also, Morton-Grove is "the most important case" only to those who believe a refusal to grant cert. is tantamount to a SCOTUS approval of a lower court ruling. People who understand the system know that just because cert. was denied, doesn't mean shit about the Supreme's views on the merits of the case. I will agree the Supremes routinely deny cert. on 2nd Amendment cases and I wish they had taken up Morton Grove, but their refusal to do so doesn't mean they agree with it.


*sigh*

So the ACLU takes a neutral position on an issue that you disagree with -- big whoop. Why must that hijack my thread?

The ACLU thinks the collective rights interpretation is correct, but does not advocate this position in any way.

Note the the ACLU's interpretation has been adopted by almost every US Court of Appeals (and all that have reached the issue) -- including the Fifth prior to the recent Emerson decision dicta.

It is also in line with the official position of the American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html). (As well as former Chief Justice Warren Burger and Judge Robert Bork.)

I've debated the Second Amendment issue to death elsewhere and ask that it not hijack my thread here.

I've debated the Second Amendment issue to death elsewhere and ask that it not hijack my thread here.

While I sympathize with your position, you must also, by now, know that on NS, almost every debate about the US legal system, tends inevitably to either gun control or abortion. / hijack.

Edit: To whit: the post below this one.

"The Militia" was every ablebodied man ergo the general public.

Thanks for telling me what I support. For your information, I'm actually anti-gun control, but contrary to what most people believe, no right to bear arms exists in the constitution for the people. The right to bear arms refers to the state militias.

EDIT:
I see CTOAN has beaten me.
Yay! I beat someone somewhere at something!

sorry, I'll go now...

4. Your problem isn't with the ACLU. Your problem is with the First Amendment and with the Founding Fathers that created the wall of separation of Church and State.

The Founding Fathers favored complete federal non-interventionist in religious issues.

But for me it is why I not longer give my hard earned $ to the ALCU.
I find it hypocritical that all other rights they fight for in the broadest possible terms the 2nd Amendment they choose to veiw in it's narrowest scope.


*sigh*

So the ACLU takes a neutral position on an issue that you disagree with -- big whoop. Why must that hijack my thread?

The ACLU thinks the collective rights interpretation is correct, but does not advocate this position in any way.

Note the the ACLU's interpretation has been adopted by almost every US Court of Appeals (and all that have reached the issue) -- including the Fifth prior to the recent Emerson decision dicta.

It is also in line with the official position of the American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html). (As well as former Chief Justice Warren Burger and Judge Robert Bork.)

I've debated the Second Amendment issue to death elsewhere and ask that it not hijack my thread here.

"The Militia" was every ablebodied man ergo the general public.
Not entirely correct. Black men were excluded, and to say that the militia composed EVERY able bodied man is a joke, and shows a clear lack of knowledge of history. The important part of this is that the militia was subject to state control and regulation. If a state wished, they can abolish guns completely. The Federal Government simply can't order a state militia to disarm.

Pro-gun makes perfect sense for being a litmus test for being pro-conservative.

It has nothing to do with Christians.

Case law can change, especially with "activist" judges of either the left or the right. If that weren't true, then people like Chuck Schumer wouldn't care who was on the Supreme Court.

Where did he mention 'pro-conservative'? They are not pro-conservative. They just aren't anti-conservative. Do you often change the point to try make someone else seem wrong or are you just doing it in this case to be difficult?

He was making the point that the ACLU defends all violations of rights. He adequately proved that point.

"TCT, NO FAIR!!! Where did you show that they defend one-legged Mexicans with speech impediments and a hairy mole on their left cheek? Because if you didn't show a billion links for every possible type of case and every possible type of person then you've presented no evidence at all and I call foul!!!!"

The Founding Fathers favored complete federal non-interventionist in religious issues.
But isn't the term that The Cat-Tribes used, "separation of Church and State", just what you are referring to here? The state not interfering in the church, and the church not interfering in the state?

Conservatives:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Liberals:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Which side does the ACLU fall in line with?
Really? All conservatives are Christians? I must have missed this. Where is my notebook. I must right that down.

Many conservatives have no stance on same-sex marriage or even support it, though many of them would like to violate the Constitution and create a seperate but equal institution.

Many Conservative would take God off of the money and out of the pledge because they liked our country the way it was when it was found before a bunch of idiots decided the best way to fight those godless commies was to further the radical Christian agenda.

I saw several Conservative on Real Time with Bill Maher supporting pornography.

I think what you meant to say is that you are displaying the position of the radical Christian right. This is far from the traditional conservative.

They also support child molesters (*cough* NAMBLA *cough*)

When are people going to be able to see the difference between defending free speech and defending the content of free speech? If you don't defend the free speech of NAMBLA, nazis, racists, etc. then you do not believe in free speech. If anything you believe in letting people say stuff so long as you agree with it. That's not free speech, it's censorship.

If I defend the family of man suing the police department for beating a man to death who was in their custody awaiting trial for murder, am I defending the act of murder? No. I'm defending a person's right to a fair trial and to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I'm attacking those that would form lynch mobs or take justice into their own hands. The difference is not subtle and it's unfortunate if you cannot see it.

:p
Conservatives:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Liberals:
Abortion
Same Sex Marriage
"God" in the pledge and on Money etc.,
Dealing with Terrorists
Pornography

Which side does the ACLU fall in line with?

Really? All conservatives are Christians? I must have missed this. Where is my notebook. I must right that down.

Many conservatives have no stance on same-sex marriage or even support it, though many of them would like to violate the Constitution and create a seperate but equal institution.

Many Conservative would take God off of the money and out of the pledge because they liked our country the way it was when it was found before a bunch of idiots decided the best way to fight those godless commies was to further the radical Christian agenda.

I saw several Conservative on Real Time with Bill Maher supporting pornography.

I think what you meant to say is that you are displaying the position of the radical Christian right. This is far from the traditional conservative.


LOL :D What are you arguing with?

Whatever man, in case you hadn't noticed both of those lists are exactly the same only they have a different name on top. YOU assigned to them the values yourself, I said nothing about what they stand for. Getting all mad about it ~ LMAO

:p


LOL :D What are you arguing with?

Whatever man, in case you hadn't noticed both of those lists are exactly the same only they have a different name on top. YOU assigned to them the values yourself, I said nothing about what they stand for. Getting all mad about it ~ LMAO

So what you mean is that you were claiming that Conservatives and Liberals have the exact same or even similar views on the matter? Let's see if that stands up against your words, shall we?

Which side does the ACLU fall in line with?

This obviously says that Liberals and Conservatives have opposing views on the issue. So unless you're arguing that Liberals generally support God on money and in the pledge and Conservatives are against it, then your point doesn't hold. Don't think you can pretend like you're not totally wrong just because you weren't that clear in your post. It's not difficult to extract your meaning.

Or perhaps what you were trying to say is that the 'sides' you were referring to were 'pro-liberal and pro-conservative' or 'anti-liberal and anti-conservative'. I pointed out that the issues you listed were not conservative and liberal issues. They were Christian right and everyone else issues.

My point was like an Ink Blot test. People DO have opinions and they see things differently. The topic here is the ACLU. Now, with Ink blot sampler, how do most people see those labels and topics with the ACLU in mind.


It wasn't meant as a trick, it was meant to make people be honest with themselves and see past the rhetoric.

With you however, we can definitely see the way you think just by a few key words... :p

So then you agree that the ACLU is not anti-conservative or anti-christian? Do you think that the ACLU is consistent in it's fight for civil rights for all no matter what their religious or political affiliation?

I think the ACLU fights for freedom of speech, even when it's screaming FIRE in a crowded theater.

They also support child molesters (*cough* NAMBLA *cough*)
No, they support their right to free speech.

My point was like an Ink Blot test. People DO have opinions and they see things differently. The topic here is the ACLU. Now, with Ink blot sampler, how do most people see those labels and topics with the ACLU in mind.

It wasn't meant as a trick, it was meant to make people be honest with themselves and see past the rhetoric.
Yes, and the ACLU supports the side of liberty in each issue you mentioned. It's not their fault that conservatives generally oppose liberty in those issues.

My point was like an Ink Blot test. People DO have opinions and they see things differently. The topic here is the ACLU. Now, with Ink blot sampler, how do most people see those labels and topics with the ACLU in mind.


It wasn't meant as a trick, it was meant to make people be honest with themselves and see past the rhetoric.

With you however, we can definitely see the way you think just by a few key words... :p

Yep. I think the ACLU supports the US Constitution. I think people who would deny people freedoms based on their particular faith, particularly when that faith is based on the Bible, are hypocrites and bad ones at that. "I want freedom so long as people are only given the freedom to think as I do!" Seriously, who do you think you're fooling?

No, they support their right to free speech.


Yes, and the ACLU supports the side of liberty in each issue you mentioned. It's not their fault that conservatives generally oppose liberty in those issues.
It's not conservatives, it's the religious right. There are plenty of conservatives that would agree with the ACLU on those issues.

Since 1934, none of the registered fully automatic weapons has been used in a crime.

That we know of, however since the guv'mint couldn't find it's own ass with both hands, a compass, and access to mapquest it's possible that one of the very few automatic weapons used in crimes was a registered weapon.

You also know the ACLU is neutral on the Second Amendment. You won't find them doing work on either side of gun control issues. And you know damn well why their being neutral is more than justified by the caselaw.
Actually, in light of the history surrounding the U.S. v. Cruikshank case it's interesting that they aren't more pro gun. Especially as that is possibly one of the most twisted and blatantly racist SCOTUS decisions there is. Even the Dred Scott decision wasn't as bad because at least then it wasn't hidden behind a web of lies and it reflected the reality of the law in the US at the time.

I think the ACLU fights for freedom of speech, even when it's screaming FIRE in a crowded theater.

I'll take that as a "yes they fight for civil rights for everyone regardless of their religious or political affiliation."

Actually, in light of the history surrounding the U.S. v. Cruikshank case it's interesting that they aren't more pro gun. Especially as that is possibly one of the most twisted and blatantly racist SCOTUS decisions there is. Even the Dred Scott decision wasn't as bad because at least then it wasn't hidden behind a web of lies and it reflected the reality of the law in the US at the time.
Maybe because the 2nd amendment already has enough manpower behind it (NRA) and doesn't need any more support?

I think the ACLU fights for freedom of speech, even when it's screaming FIRE in a crowded theater.
I'm sure they would agree with you.

Maybe because the 2nd amendment already has enough manpower behind it (NRA) and doesn't need any more support?
This was in 1875, so that really doesn't apply. I know ACLU wasn't around then but if they were really all about civil liberties and non-dicrimination you would think they would have been all over the decision when they did form.

This was in 1875, so that really doesn't apply. I know ACLU wasn't around then but if they were really all about civil liberties and non-dicrimination you would think they would have been all over the decision when they did form.
You mean attempting to apply 14th amendment application of the bill of rights to the states? I don't think that's really going to go anywhere, considering most courts have been loath to apply it to the states lately.

You mean attempting to apply 14th amendment application of the bill of rights to the states? I don't think that's really going to go anywhere, considering most courts have been loath to apply it to the states lately.
The precedent for that attitude stems from the Cruikshank case. Had that decision not been in place the lower courts wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

What you think it means doesn't matter. It's constitutional to have a standing army.

It's not constitutional to have a standing army, and the entirety of the Constitutional Congress agrees with me, as well as everyone who assisted them.

Want to hear the reasoning basis by the founders for the Second Amendment?

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Truthfully, what YOU Think doesn't matter...

Thanks for telling me what I support. For your information, I'm actually anti-gun control, but contrary to what most people believe, no right to bear arms exists in the constitution for the people. The right to bear arms refers to the state militias.

State Militia = The People....

So then you agree that the ACLU is not anti-conservative or anti-christian? Do you think that the ACLU is consistent in it's fight for civil rights for all no matter what their religious or political affiliation?

I think they are someone consistent; and therefore commend them... (though not completely consistent.... but then again, who really is....)

Every time the case history of the ACLU is brought out and shown not to reflect the hysteria of the 'they hate christianity and americans (conservatives, they get confused sometimes...)' it turns into this, "Um...well...oh yeah, well....t-they don't do the gun thing."

As if the NRA doesn't exist to cover just that issue alone with larger resources.

Every time the case history of the ACLU is brought out and shown not to reflect the hysteria of the 'they hate christianity and americans (conservatives, they get confused sometimes...)' it turns into this, "Um...well...oh yeah, well....t-they don't do the gun thing."


Nice easy baby steps for those of you that just don’t get it…

1: Freedom of Speech, the right to protest.
2: The right to obtain an Abortion.

The ACLU defends the right to get an abortion (2), they defend the right to protest the abortion (1), but they actively fight against the right to stop abortions (2). How is this not a liberal position? Just because they defend the right to protest abortions does not make them an ally of conservatives, they defend the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest because that is in their self interest.

The ACLU defends a liberal / left point of view, it’s hardly a secret.

Nice easy baby steps for those of you that just don’t get it…

1: Freedom of Speech, the right to protest.
2: The right to obtain an Abortion.

The ACLU defends the right to get an abortion (2), they defend the right to protest the abortion (1), but they actively fight against the right to stop abortions (2). How is this not a liberal position? Just because they defend the right to protest abortions does not make them an ally of conservatives, they defend the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest because that is in their self interest.

The ACLU defends a liberal / left point of view, it’s hardly a secret.
Well, then there are always a few of these hold outs...

Nice easy baby steps for those of you that just don’t get it…

1: Freedom of Speech, the right to protest.
2: The right to obtain an Abortion.

The ACLU defends the right to get an abortion (2), they defend the right to protest the abortion (1), but they actively fight against the right to stop abortions (2). How is this not a liberal position? Just because they defend the right to protest abortions does not make them an ally of conservatives, they defend the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest because that is in their self interest.

The ACLU defends a liberal / left point of view, it’s hardly a secret.

You're right... because they also support forcing public funds to be used for such "freedoms"... It would be the same concept as me dictating a 2nd Amendment issue whereby I require people who can't afford weapons to be bought one at the taxpayers expense. In reality, it's more leftist than liberal (the words do mean completely different things).

You mean attempting to apply 14th amendment application of the bill of rights to the states? I don't think that's really going to go anywhere, considering most courts have been loath to apply it to the states lately.

Some thoughts on the 14th Amendment.

Incorporation was stated as the goal by some members of Congress when they debated the 14th Amendment, and even opponents of the 14th argued that it would incorporate the 2nd against the states.

Some say that it may have been the misguided and questionable goals of a few, namely Bingham and Howard, but hardly the goal of the 39th Congress.

Bingham and Howard, however, were floor managers for the 14th Amendment. Their views deserve some weight. As Stephen Halbrook has demonstrated, even opponents agreed that the 14th Amendment would prohibit the states from disarming blacks, though of course expressed in the most absurd and extreme form, such as a "drunken Negro flourishing a pistol".

Those that did make this claim professed it was via the Privileges and Immunities clause the Bill of Rights were applied to the States. One claimed it was via Article IV's P & I clause; i.e., it applied the Bill of Rights to the States prior to the Bill of Rights existence.

Indeed, this is a view that had been held by a number of people before
Barron v. Baltimore, and even some state supreme courts continued to
take that view after Barron v. Baltimore.

However when examples of privileges the P & I clause protected were listed during the debates, the Bill of Rights protections were very much absent.

"What are priviliges and immunities ? Why sir, all the rights we have under the laws of the country are embraced under the defintion of privileges and immunites. The right to vote is a privilege. The right to marry is a privilege. The right to contract is a privilege. The right to be a juror is a privilege...."

- from Sen Rogers (NJ) Cong Globe 39th Congress 1st session at 2539 (1866).

Some disagreed with Rogers that these were the type of rights intended to be protected by the P & I clause.

The noted Reconstruction historian Eric Foner recently wrote:

“The states, declared Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, who guided the Amendment to passage in the Senate, could no longer infringe on the liberties the Bill of Rights had secured against federal violation; henceforth, they must respect `the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight Amendments.' [Rep. John] Bingham said much the same thing in the House. Some portions of the Bill of Rights were of little moment in 1866. But it is abundantly clear that Republicans wished to give constitutional sanction to states' obligation to respect such key provisions as freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, trial by impartial jury, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable search and seizure. The Freedmen's Bureau had already taken steps to protect these rights, and the Amendment was deemed necessary, in part, precisely because every one of them was being systematically violated in the South in 1866.” [Eric Foner, Reconstruction, (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 258-9]

There is also the interesting comparison of the 14th and 5th Amendment. The 14th's Due Process clause, is worded exactly like the 5th Amendment.

Some believe that the 14th's farmers would not have bothered with this wording, if they felt or intended another clause to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

The Due Process's wording is like the 5th's clearly to apply 5th Amendment protections against State laws because no such protections against the State existed anywhere else in the Constitution.

On its face, that's potentially persuasive. I would point out, however, that there are often strange little additions to amendments in this period that have to be called "belt and suspenders" approaches. For example, why does Am. XIV, sec. 5 say: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

It's sort of redundant, isn't it? It's in there, and in Am. XIII an XV
because there was some question in the minds of some as to whether
Congress actually had authority to pass laws to enforce these amendments without an explicit statement. Perhaps (and I freely admit this is an hypothesis) having due process in directly as well as indirectly was an attempt to make sure that no one did what was actually done by the Supreme Court -- emasculate the P&I section, and leave nothing left to work with.

Of course, there are cases where petitioners seek to apply the 14th's P&I clause. For example, Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353, 354, 355, 43 Am. Rep. 275 (1882). Or U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), where the Supreme Court took the view that P&I only applied to attributes of *national* citizenship, in order to free some Klansmen.

Of course, even if "privileges and immunities" didn't include the Bill of Rights, we have this tidbit.

An excerpt from the book “For the Defense of Themselves and the State”
(Praeger, 1994):

The first federal decision to discuss the right to keep and bear arms is a well-known case though it is not well-known for its relevance to the Second Amendment Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). The goal of the suit was to establish that slaves taken into free states were thus free. But the issue of whether free blacks were citizens, and could therefore sue in the Federal courts, had to be resolved first. To that end, it sought to establish that free blacks were citizens of the United States. Justice Taney, writing for the majority, rejected this position:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State. [emphasis added]

Justice Taney then held that because of the disruption it would cause
in slave states for free blacks to be citizens of the United States, that:
`It is impossible ... that the great men of the slaveholding States, who took so large a share in framing the Constitution of the United States ... could have been so forgetful or regardless of their own safety,' in intending that free blacks be citizens.[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857)]

Where did this right `to keep and carry arms' come from? Apparently
from the `privileges and immunities' section of the Constitution; but,
if so, this right pre-existed the Constitution, and could be included
in the Ninth Amendment's protections, as well as the Second Amendment. Evidence that this right came from the `privileges and immunities' clause not the Second Amendment, is that Taney called these rights of citizens even though the language of the Bill of Rights protects these rights of the people.

It would like you could raise an army but only fund it for 2 years.


Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

So we need to disband the Army and have a Friggin huge Marine Corp as a Navy is to be maintained ? :p





It's not constitutional to have a standing army, and the entirety of the Constitutional Congress agrees with me, as well as everyone who assisted them.

Want to hear the reasoning basis by the founders for the Second Amendment?

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Truthfully, what YOU Think doesn't matter...

Well, then there are always a few of these hold outs...

Yeah, well, some people don't the difference between the radical Christian right and the general conservative population. And some people say if you don't agree them on some individual point you're against them. According to Ph33rdom because I don't worship the way he wants me to, I'm not a Christian. Apparently believing that Jesus was my personal Savior and accepting salvation isn't enough. I have to agree with Ph33r or I am no Christian.

Because one is capable of being rational doesn't mean they will be.

Yeah, well, some people don't the difference between the radical Christian right and the general conservative population. And some people say if you don't agree them on some individual point you're against them. According to Ph33rdom because I don't worship the way he wants me to, I'm not a Christian. Apparently believing that Jesus was my personal Savior and accepting salvation isn't enough. I have to agree with Ph33r or I am no Christian.

Because one is capable of being rational doesn't mean they will be.

A bit touchy are we? I think I once accused you being an enabler, because you are, but I don't recall ever saying that you are, or are not, a Christian.

How very ad hominine, nicely done, strawman and everything.

A bit touchy are we? I think I once accused you being an enabler, because you are, but I don't recall ever saying that you are, or are not, a Christian.

How very ad hominine, nicely done, strawman and everything.

Man, I wish I knew how to search this site more effectively, because you most certainly said that. And you're right, I'm an enabler, just like that crazy Jesus fella was. Oh, and since that's not enough for you, just like Paul was.

Nice easy baby steps for those of you that just don’t get it…

1: Freedom of Speech, the right to protest.
2: The right to obtain an Abortion.

The ACLU defends the right to get an abortion (2), they defend the right to protest the abortion (1), but they actively fight against the right to stop abortions (2). How is this not a liberal position? Just because they defend the right to protest abortions does not make them an ally of conservatives, they defend the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest because that is in their self interest.

The ACLU defends a liberal / left point of view, it’s hardly a secret.
No what they support is freedoms

maybe liberals just support more freedoms thats why it appears they take their side more often...

Amazing they appear on the side that supports more freedoms (their cause as well) :rolleyes: