Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on July 03, 2008, 09:23:28 AM
-
Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.
So, the ACLU supports all of your liberties and rights except the ones with which they don't agree. These guys are too funny!
If you want to pass a little time, here's the link to their blog with comments on that statement.
They're getting blistered by all posters, including ACLU members.
If you ever needed any more evidence that the ACLU was not an impartial defender of the Constitution, I don't see this can fail to be that evidence.
-
ACLU :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
(http://www.take2.cc/Stuff/Picture1.jpg)
-
Soooooo...
Since the ACLU disagrees with the SC they are hypocrites? Funny Toad. There are many many people in this country who disagree with the SC. They may be wrong, but they are not idiots nor are they hypocrites. They are well meaning intelligent people with a point of view that differs from your own. I guess that means we should hang 'em.
-
Well considering that the Bill of Rights are there for ALL citizens, how can one, the 2nd, only be a collective right? That makes absolutely no sense at all, and yes anyone who cannot understand common sense is an idiot.
-
I agree with the ACLU, the SC did leave the amendment too vague.
-
I don't recall the exact wordings and who said what, but IIRC the SC ruling was only a little vague. The comments (sorry, can't recall the exact name for it) by one of the Justices that went with the ruling were anything but vague, though. Nothing ambiguous anywhere in his statement. Charon and Toad (if not others too) covered it pretty well, probably lumped in the general gun thread now.
-
MT, excuse me for clipping a succint summation of the problem. This from the ACLU blog.
From an interview that I saw regarding the ACLU NAMBLA case, they explained that they did not support or assert the notion that a person’s civil rights were being infringed upon by laws preventing them from having sex with underage boys. They explained that they were taking the case because they felt that legal precedent was lacking and it would be beneficial to establish a more codified position.
OK. So what they are telling me is that SC interpretation is needed and that they respect the rulings of the SC. In fact, much of the activities of the ACLU has been bringing cases in order to establish legal precedent through cases. At its foundation, they are deferring to the rulings of the legal system as being the final arbitrator of precedent and the rule of law.
And then we get this….
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.[/color]
They have literally stated that they disagree with the SC and that they are therefore– by dissenting– suggested a fallibility of the very entity which they have touted and relied upon as the final arbitrator of codified rights.
What they are saying is that the SC is the final word– unless it goes against our viewpoint.
By the statement I have quoted, the ACLU has now identified itself as an organization who is more interested in social engineering rather than codification of rights.
-
"...... unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation...........""
their collective campaign of frivolous lawsuits over the last few decades is in itself, sickening. they are a burden on our courts.
-
I'm curious, what are the other "collective rights" in the Bill of Rights? Secondly what are the defining points of the "collective" so that an individual knows if they qualify to be protected under the collective's right(s).
-
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed = Individual Right.
Will not surrender this right ever.
-
I agree with the ACLU's position on most of the Bill of Rights, I have however always felt that their stance on the 2nd amendment was wrong.
I have searched all my life for a group or individual whose opinions matched mine 100%, have yet to find one.
shamus
-
Just what exactly is a "collective right?" By definition a right is something that belongs to an individual.
-
Shamus, it's not if they are an exact match for YOUR opinions in legal cases.
It's whether or not they can profess that a SC decision is the final say in cases where the ruling goes their way and then totally ignore the SC decision when they don't agree with it.
If they are truly there to defend our rights then they have to defend the SC individual right in the 2nd as vigorously as they defend the free speech of NAMBLA.
But we all know they won't.
Anyone want to make a wager on the ACLU defending the individual right in the next court case? Think they'll be on the side of the plaintiff in the new Chicago 2nd Amendment case just filed?
-
ACLU should be put in prison for treason
-
I understand that Toad, but as I said they are not right on everything.
I rather doubt that had the decision gone the other way the NRA would have said "well the SC has spoken, we have nothing else to say".
We know that abortion opponents have been fighting a SC decision for the last 35 years and stand a good chance of getting it overturned if they can get the current court to hear a case.
I don't hold the ACLU to a higher standard than other action groups, when I think they are right, I support them, when wrong I don't, simple as that.
shamus
-
ya know.. I had asked earlier what the ACLU would do if the SC ruled the second an individual right.
My take on their position has always been that they were saying "sorry.. we would love to help all you gun owners with your civil rights and constitutional rights but it sure seems that the second has been interpreted as a collective right and not an individual one.. we really have no choice."
That is the impression they have given on their website and in emails to me.. their "interpretation" was based on past SC rulings and... they even quote parts of past rulings to excuse there lack of support for second amendment rights.
They claim that they have no agenda.. that they are only going by the constitution and sc rulings on it.
now that the SC has ruled.. for the first time.. on the individual rights thing.. they are saying that they know more than the SC.
They are admitting their agenda.. they have no rock to hide under anymore...
Their agenda is out there for all to see.
Would shamus excuse them and support them if the amendment they picked to ignore was say.. the first?
To me.. the second is more important or at least as important as the first.
To subscribe to any "collective rights" theory on amendments is to simply admit an agenda of socialism.
At least we drug the cockroaches out into the light..
I am looking forward to the democrat cockroaches that will be drug into the light over this decision.. osamabama is tap dancing mightily but eventually someone is gonna ask him if the laws he voted for in say chicago are just and a good idea..
lazs
-
shamus.. the NRA is nothing more than an advocacy group for gun rights.. they would be expected to say the SC were wrong if they decided for some bogus collective right thing.
The ACLU is pretending to be advocates of individual rights and simply wishing for the constitution to be upheld with no hidden agenda.
They are now in a position to admit that they are not just neutral but have an anti second amendment agenda. That individual rights are not important to them in at least this case.
the "sorry, we would love to help you gun owners but legally you don't have a leg to stand on." thing is now thrown out the window.. they now have to admit that they didn't want to help, not because they couldn't but because they hate you having the right.
I think this is a huge admission exposure.
lazs
-
Shamus, the difference between the NRA and the ACLU is clear.
The NRA is all about the 2nd Amendment, the RKBA. That is their SOLE focus. They never said they'd defend or fight the right to abortion. It is out of their scope.
The ACLU is all about defending ALL of our Constitutional rights. As such they are hypocritical to the extreme by denying the recent individual right ruling. Defending the 2nd is clearly in their scope. In the past, they dodged that responsibility by clinging to the collective right misinterpretation. Now that their fig leaf is blown away, they announce they will ignore the ruling.
<edit> laz beat me to it.
-
you said it better.
lazs
-
Thats right Toad, the NRA is all about the 2nd, and if lazs is correct, and I suspect he is, they would not have accepted the SC decision had it gone the other way. Would that make them hypocritical?
If you want to call the ACLU hypocritical on this thats fairly accurate, I'm not going to defend them, but it is also not going to change my opinion of a lot of the good work they do.
shamus
-
I think you are dodging the issue Shamus.
The NRA has always been clear about their reading of the 2nd as an individual right. I would expect them to oppose any SC decision that went against that interpretation. They have never said the SC is the supreme arbiter of our rights. To the contrary, like Jefferson (and now the SC), they have maintained that the RKBA is an existing right of all mankind that predates the Constitution.
The ACLU, OTOH, presents itself as a defender of our Constitutional rights and has repeatedly held up the SC as the final arbiter of those rights. Now, with respect to just the 2nd Amendment, the SC is wrong and is no longer the final arbiter of those rights. You can't have it both ways. If they're going to defend ALL our rights, they have to defend the 2nd as well. To do otherwise is indeed hypocritical.
-
yep..well put.. the NRA believes as the SC now states it does that the second is not a right conferred upon us by a gracious government but that it simply states a pre existing right.
On the other hand.. the ACLU are lawyers.. using the law to bludgen their way. They use the law to uphold what they say are our constitutional rights. Now... they ignore the law so that they can continue to tramp on ... or at least ignore.. our constitutional and god given rights as free men.
I expected no less but am glad that they have at last been drug out into the light... many many people will re-evaluate what the real agenda of the ACLU is after this.. it is very revealing.
lazs
-
Shamus, it's not if they are an exact match for YOUR opinions in legal cases.
It's whether or not they can profess that a SC decision is the final say in cases where the ruling goes their way and then totally ignore the SC decision when they don't agree with it.
So the above would apply to my opinions or the ACLU's opinions, but not to the NRA's?.
shamus
-
You do acknowledge that the NRA is a narrowly focused organization that states its purpose as defending the 2nd Amendment? That it makes sense for them to continue to defend a right that pre-exists the Constitution?
You do realize that the ACLU purports to defend ALL of our rights as enumerated by our Constitution with the SC as final arbiter?
You don't see the difference? Come now.
-
In 1939, USA vs. Miller, the SC ruled gun ownership to be a collective right.
-
Sure I acknowledge that the NRA's position is to defend the 2nd and I stated my opinion of the ACLU's position on the latest SC ruling as well in my very first post.
I find it interesting that the ACLU is to be vilified for not accepting a SC ruling but it is expected that the NRA would fight on had the ruling gone the other way is all, just does not seem consistent.
Well this has been fun gents, but I am gonna go fly now :)
shamus
-
In 1939, USA vs. Miller, the SC ruled gun ownership to be a collective right.
That is incorrect. Read the text of Miller. That is one of those falsehoods that has been repeated so often that it is taken as truth. Miller doesn't even address individual right; that idea is a fabrication.
I ask you to quote text of the Miller decision that calls it out as a collective right. As Scalia pointed out:
“And what is, according to JUSTICE STEVENS, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment ‘protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.” Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.” (49)
“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.”
If you actually read the text, that is what you will find there.
-
Sure I acknowledge that the NRA's position is to defend the 2nd and I stated my opinion of the ACLU's position on the latest SC ruling as well in my very first post.
shamus
Again, the NRA has never acknowledged any governmental authority over a pre-existing right.
OTOH, the ACLU routinely acknowledges the SC as the final arbiter in Constitutional cases.
MAJOR difference there.
-
It's just that the ACLU believes that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective one and therefore when a trigger is pulled, we do it collectively. This is not hypoctical at all, as we now that we are collectively at fault for gun crime. We all know that societal influences caused the individual to pick up a gun and walk into a 7-11 and demand that the cashier empty the cash drawer. It is the fault of us all.
-
In 1939, USA vs. Miller, the SC ruled gun ownership to be a collective right.
How does a collective right differ from an individual right? You cannot have one without the other. In other words, 350 million individual rights translate
into a larger collective right....do they not? You cannot have a collective right without the individual right?
Dumb question but it begs to be asked :eek:
-
Wow, you guys should read their blog on the ACLU website. As the OP mentioned, they are getting shredded
-
There is no such thing as a "collective right" or.. to be more precise.. a collective right is no right at all.
carrel.. the reason that it is being said that this is the first time in history that the individual right has been ruled on is because... wait for it... this is the first time. It was assumed (rightfully) by the court in "Miller" that it was an individual right with the only restriction being that the weapons be useful if someone wanted to be in a militia.. Miller was not in any militia other than the fact that we all are by virtue of being citizens.
The ruling confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by government but a natural and god given one "unalienable" and that the amendment only limits governments power over a natural right.
The commie hypocrites at the ACLU deserve all the shredding they are getting, they deserve to have their agenda dragged out into the open.
How could they possibly be not supporting this decision if they really are for protecting our individual rights? Nope.. they are not.. they were founded by a commie and they continue to embrace his ideals and realize that no armed populace would put up with their commie crap.
lazs
-
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed = Individual Right.
Will not surrender this right ever.
Why is this open to interpretation? Keep means stores them on your person or property. Bear arms means, to take up the arms against their government or foreign invaders. It's supposed to be there to keep the government in check!
The ACLU is a greasy group of hippies that want the government to do everything for us.
Hell go see Wall-E. It's what they want the world to become.
-
Lazs, at the time the Bill of Rights was written virtually every able bodied man in the Colonies was in a "Militia." There were no meetings or drills, but whenever the church bell gave the alarm everyone grabbed their gun and assembled.
Personally I believe gun ownership at that time was thought to be such a basic right- actually a basic necessity of life- the Framers didn't feel it was worthy of guarantee, any more than giving you the right to wear a hat was mentioned. What WAS worthy of mention was the right of citizens to band together to protect themselves against the tyrany of even their own Government, which was a novel idea, and is what the Second did.
If I were to advocate for gun ownership I'd point out the customs of those times allowed everybody to own and carry the most advanced weapons of the day, and was never intended to be resticted at any rate; I'd imagine the Framers would be spinning in their graves if the Citizens here were told today we can no longer own firearms.
So in my humble opinion the Second states we have a collective right to form militas rather than an individual right to own guns because the individual right to posess a gun was such a universal necessity of life during those times, like posessing a plow or an axe.
-
So in my humble opinion the Second states we have a collective right to form militas rather than an individual right to own guns because the individual right to posess a gun was such a universal necessity of life during those times, like posessing a plow or an axe.
You are certainly entitled to have that opinion but fortunately in deciding matters such as Heller v DC things are held to a higher standard.
Again, quoting text of US v Miller, demonstrate where that decision delineated the RKBA as a collective right. No one can do it, because as Scalia clearly pointed out it isn't in there.
I suppose I could say that in my humble opinion the Federal government should have the right to censor newspapers. Unfortunately there is a body of law and a SC decisions that would make that opinion of mine ludicrous.
Just as the Heller v DC decision with Scalia's excellent delineation of the individual right makes your opinion ludicrous.
Sorry, I know that sounds harsh but that is as apt a comparison as I can make.
-
Well Toad, I suggest you rethink your intention of becoming a Democrat then. You'd be a lousy one anyway.
:)
-
Yeah, I know; it was a joke.
Anyone that believes in a strict interpretation of what the Constitution actually says really can't be a Democrat at all. :D
-
Steve, I took your advice and went to the ACLUs website Blog.
Amazing the beating they are taking over this. Seems as though they are about to lose a great many contributors.
To the ACLU......did anyone there consider taking a reading comprehension class?
-
Personally I believe gun ownership at that time was thought to be such a basic right- actually a basic necessity of life-
Why isn't it a necessity now? What's changed? Violent crime rates are through the roof compared to colonial times... how is it that we need guns less now than back then?
-
The older I get the more I despise gun Laws that restrict honest, law abiding, citizens.
-
So its like having the right to free speech....but only speech that doesnt offend anyone. Like what we see in France if one speaks out about the Muslims (Go Ms Bardot!)
If the 2nd Ammendment is indeed valid, as the SC said, then the ACLU trying to wrangle what firearms are OK and not is just an obvious attempt to rewrite the Ammendment. (See above example)
-
Steve, I took your advice and went to the ACLUs website Blog.
Amazing the beating they are taking over this. Seems as though they are about to lose a great many contributors.
There's a lot of eloquent comments there. Check them out...
http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/
-
There's a lot of eloquent comments there. Check them out...
http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/
Taken from a comment:
"Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . ."
:rofl
-
Obvious to me the 2A rights are a political issue for the ACLU not a civil rights issue.
Peter Soros has probably gotten the whip out for the floggings that will be coming at ACLU HQ for the loss to the SC.
-
Holy mackerel! They're really getting ripped apart on their own blog! Hardly a voice supporting their stance, and old time members pulling their financial support and memberships right and left! :O
-
I wonder how many people realize that Heller was actually 9-0 for "individual right".
The first paragraph of the dissent agrees it is an individual right. That is not in question except to ninnies like the ACLU.
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE
GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals.
OK, for the slow thinkers at ACLU here it is once again: Heller v DC, 9-0 for individual, NOT COLLECTIVE, right.
Even the dissenters say "Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals
-
Just found a new potential sig line over on thehighroad.org
"America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the ba*****s."
Claire Wolfe
:)
-
Toad LOL that is priceless :aok
-
Toad LOL that is priceless :aok
LMAO NS! :aok
-
Just found a new potential sig line over on thehighroad.org
"America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the ba*****s."
Claire Wolfe
:)
I have mentioned previously that a revolution may be the only chance to save what's left of this country. Whether by peaceful secession or war, things must change, IMHO. I believe that the far left and their oppressive behaviors will become an intolerable yoke that will one day force reasonable people to act. YMMV.
-
So its like having the right to free speech....but only speech that doesnt offend anyone. Like what we see in France if one speaks out about the Muslims (Go Ms Bardot!)
If the 2nd Ammendment is indeed valid, as the SC said, then the ACLU trying to wrangle what firearms are OK and not is just an obvious attempt to rewrite the Ammendment. (See above example)
Once again (not gonna derail the thread tho), she wasn't talking about the muslims. It just looks like it from the well meaning comfort of your 4th amendment-protected armchair... If you knew people like that toe, you'd know what she went on trial for saying is the cheapest most transparent excuse for a PC rant, when everything she says off the record is completely racist. You'd know better than cherry pick one case that happens to stand out and instead would consider other cases like Michel Houellebecq's.
-
Maybe deep down they still have that communist agenda thing going on. They have really made a mistake here.
-
Maybe deep down they still have that communist agenda thing going on.
:noid
-
carrel.. you do not know history.. the original militia was every able bodied man. it still is for that matter so even if you felt that the only reason for the second was a milita then you would still have to find for individual right. You need to be armed if you ever want to form a milita from the citizen.. the people.
No one on the court said that it was a collective right.. there is no such thing anywhere in the constitution. collective rights are something that commies use to excuse the removal of rights.
It is fun to watch the ACLU and osamabama and the democrats squirm on this Heller thing.. just as I predicted it would be.
I cant wait till someone asks osamabama if he is now for getting rid of all the illegal gun bans that he voted for.. ones very much like the DC one that he now says was over the top...
shades of klinton!
lazs
-
Nah, they still have "reasonable restriction". To a liberal, a reasonable restriction on firearms is that no one can have one.
-
They just want to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
guess what.. you have the wrong hands.
lazs
-
Everyone has the wrong hands. Except their bodyguards, of course.
-
they would probly make an exception for the riot police too.
lazs
-
carrel.. you do not know history.. the original militia was every able bodied man. it still is for that matter so even if you felt that the only reason for the second was a milita then you would still have to find for individual right. You need to be armed if you ever want to form a milita from the citizen.. the people.
lazs
That's what I said, Lazs.
-
That's what I said, Lazs.
Are you going to answer my questions Carrel or woudl that be inconvenient for your position?
-
So in my humble opinion the Second states we have a collective right to form militas rather than an individual right to own guns because the individual right to posess a gun was such a universal necessity of life during those times, like posessing a plow or an axe.
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 right to form militias is expressly limited by the 2nd with the phrase "well regulated" well regulated means to me government control of the militia.
As far as gun ownership, it seems quite clear to me the framers were talking about the right of the people to arm themselves... due to the necessity of the militia deal.
-
The ACLU started as a communist organization and though they had a falling out with Stalin have not swerved from their subversive agenda an inch unless it was expedient to their cause.
-
Trying to find the ACLU getting their just deserts but their forums are offline, how convenient. Looks like they only support 1st amendment when it's convenient and aligned with their agenda also. http://www.aclu.org/forums/index.html
-
There is evidence from correspondences of the time that the term "well regulated" as used in colonial times meant "properly adjusted/operating properly." So it could be substituted...A properly operating militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In other words, the RKBA was already in place, and the militia would profit from this by government not infringing on the RKBA in any way. Hence the militia would be well regulated and ready for action because it would have arms available at a moment's notice.
When you think about it, there weren't government regulations on everything like there are nowadays. When people said regulation, they were referring to the degree of efficient functionality of something. For example, the clock is well regulated and keeps good time. I don't have to regulate (adjust) it often. [ Regulator clocks] Or, the speech that fellow made was a well regulated one. He was very articulate. If a rifle was well regulated, that meant it was a top notch rifle. Not that it was registered and licensed and inspected.
The idea of government control and regulation is a modern one, and we see the term "regulation" differently. A common error is we try to evaluate meanings using modern definitions instead of the language of the time. History is re-written/re-interpreted because we tend to judge the past by today's standards. In this case we interpret an archaic term by today's meaning. I believe the militia clause of the Second is a subordinate clause and is placed there as an example of the importance of an already existing right.
The militia clause could have been left completely out and not changed the meaning of the Second Amendment. A standing army would have been well regulated in the modern sense. The founders didn't trust a standing army at the time. Seems like the more "regulated" a militia would be, in the modern sense, the closer to a standing army it would become. This is opposite to what the founders were trying to achieve. The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “no Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
Les
-
The supreme court rightly mentioned hunting and self defense.. the second mentions forming a militia.. all of these things are reasons why the government can't infringe on our god given right to keep and bear arms.
They are simply examples.. not the operative part of the second. the operative phrase is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" we always had the right.. we were born with it.. the second just makes sure that the government knows it.
There are about 700 letters on the ACLU blog... about 0% of them support the ACLU position.. they are being lambasted... and rightly so..
As I said last year.. it will be fun to watch them and the agenda driven liberal democrats dragged out into the light for all to see....
Imagine the heart attacks in the ranks of the gun grabbers who gave all that money to osamabama and the democrats when the fool osamabama spouted off lately that he agreed with the individual rights thing and that the DC ban was "over the top" the DC ban is exactly the goal that his supporters wanted..
Imagine the mail back and forth reasuring the sorros camp and the brady bunch that osamabama was just lying to us and that he still wants to ban every gun he can.
lazs
-
After further review....
I'd have to say I think the ACLU is wrong on this issue. This would be the 2nd time I disagreed with them. The 1st was when they refused to help Bakke in his age/reverse discrimination case against UC Davis.
-
Welcome! We hope you enjoy your stay here in the Light. :salute
-
mt.. that would make you one more of the 700 people who so far, have emailed them and are on the blog.
They are really getting (rightly so) blasted for their position.. many have pointed out that they must either be anti American or be pandering to their main contributors. I say both.
I love all the guys who are going to quit the ACLU and give their dues money to the NRA instead..
lazs
-
Steve, I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns for whatever reason you want. Heck. I own guns and if they were banned then I'd choose to break the law by keeping them.
But in my opinion there was enough of a question of what the 2nd actually says- the addition of that militia thingie casts a shadow of doubt on the intention of the Framers.
As far as the ACLU goes, if you don't believe in what they're doing then don't send them your money.
-
As far as the ACLU goes, if you don't believe in what they're doing then don't send them your money.
Does that mean you favor eliminating the law that allows them to sue the federal government at my expense?
-
None are so blind as those that will not see.
-
If you vote for osamabama or any of the gun grabbing democrats then you have to do so realizing that they think that you should not be allowed to have firearms.
They are afraid of you having guns. there is a reason for that.
lazs
-
At one time the ACLU was probably a good idea. But like other political bodies they seem to listen only to the extreme view and ignore the centrist view point. The trouble is who is out there to defend whats right when we can't trust our government? Their agenda(ACLU) is obviously quite flawed and inconsistant.
Kind of like PETA. Probably was good at one time but they lost me when they started defending the rights of vermin(Rats!) and other pests.
-
If you vote for osamabama or any of the gun grabbing democrats then you have to do so realizing that they think that you should not be allowed to have firearms.
They are afraid of you having guns. there is a reason for that.
lazs
I think you all are hypocrites.
Since being able to have a firearm is our God given right, then why regulate it? The only entitiy that should be able to regulate our firearms should be the individual. I don't want some socialist government nazis messing with what type of gun I have. I know that guns sometimes end up in the wrong hands, but so do other things. I want all automatic weapons legalized along with other explosive devices (I.E. Grenades, Mines, Etc.). I know I may come off as extreme, but I'M AN AMERICAN GOSH DANGIT!!!!!!!!!
-
Steve, I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns for whatever reason you want. Heck. I own guns and if they were banned then I'd choose to break the law by keeping them.
But in my opinion there was enough of a question of what the 2nd actually says- the addition of that militia thingie casts a shadow of doubt on the intention of the Framers.
As far as the ACLU goes, if you don't believe in what they're doing then don't send them your money.
Did you read the decision yet? If not, you can read it here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)
The Court clearly shows the relationship between the prefatory clause and the operative clause beginning on page 6.
My regards,
Widewing
-
twentyfo.. you do sarcasm badly.. I mean really badly.. you sound shrill when you do it.
You also lie even worse than your hero osamabama. I don't think anyone here ever believed you when you told us in other threads that you were for our second amendment rights just as no sane person believes osamabama has had a change of heart about banning guns.
Oh.. you do realize that about 100,000 citizens do own automatic weapons and enjoy them without any problem to you or your sissy friends in the least.
If I wanted to get elected the way the liberal democrats get elected.. using their morality.. to get their money and votes I would say that I was for a womans right to murd.. er.. choose... with some safe and sane restrictions.. I would leave out that the safe and sane restrictions I would put in place would be that no woman under the age of 65 be allowed to have one.
lazs
-
Lazs at this point TF has no idea what he's saying.. One of his friends or parents probably saw the conversation he was replying to on his bedroom computer and told him to just not bother with "racists", "neocons", etc. He's past trying to make sense of anything or trying to get to the bottom of things himself and prolly isn't interested anyway. Who cares about whether what you say is right or wrong when everyone agreeing with you is more important than the truth? Especialy if seeing the heart of the matter takes effort and challenges old (relatively in TF's case :lol) habits.
-
Sheeesh Lazs, just moments ago you said this-
"I see that liberal democrats are the ones who cause most of this divide with their inability to keep their nose out of everyone else's business of which they know nothing."
And now you say this-
"If I wanted to get elected the way the liberal democrats get elected.. using their morality.. to get their money and votes I would say that I was for a womans right to murd.. er.. choose... with some safe and sane restrictions.. I would leave out that the safe and sane restrictions I would put in place would be that no woman under the age of 65 be allowed to have one."
If it's an issue that offends your core beliefs- abortion, for instance- then you're all for the Government sticking their nose into someone else's business.
Too funny.
-
If it's an issue that offends your core beliefs- abortion, for instance- then you're all for the Government sticking their nose into someone else's business.
Too funny.
(Opens Can of Worms)
The right to LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-
Sheeesh Lazs, just moments ago you said this-
"I see that liberal democrats are the ones who cause most of this divide with their inability to keep their nose out of everyone else's business of which they know nothing."
And now you say this-
"If I wanted to get elected the way the liberal democrats get elected.. using their morality.. to get their money and votes I would say that I was for a womans right to murd.. er.. choose... with some safe and sane restrictions.. I would leave out that the safe and sane restrictions I would put in place would be that no woman under the age of 65 be allowed to have one."
If it's an issue that offends your core beliefs- abortion, for instance- then you're all for the Government sticking their nose into someone else's business.
Too funny.
It's a clause if statement.
-
(Opens Can of Worms)
The right to LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Oh, I get it! If the issue is important enough, in your opinion, then you're all for Government regulation.
Thanks for clearing that one up.
-
That's why i said, opens can of worms. It's one of those topics that seems to be interpreted by different people in different ways.
I believe abortion in normal circumstances is murder.
In abnormal circumstances, such as a rape victim, i see nothing wrong with giving the mother a choice for a mercy killing.
That might sound hypocritical to you, but it's what i believe.
I don't want to hijack this topic though.
-
Oh, I get it! If the issue is important enough, in your opinion, then you're all for Government regulation.
Thanks for clearing that one up.
I think it is clearly a States Rights issue. Abortion legality should be determined at the State level and not the Federal level.
If you've done any research on Roe v Wade, there was some mighty stretching of the Constitution to fit that one in and some chicanery behind the scenes to manipulate the decision in another case to make that decision support Roe.
Part of the "etc." Blackmun invoked as precedent was Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 decision that extended the right to contraception to single people. This was a sham, however: The justices designed the precedent to suit the progeny. Justice William Brennan's draft of Eisenstadt, which was circulated months after oral arguments in Roe, "was obviously crafted to apply in the abortion context," Greenhouse writes, noting that Brennan made the unnecessary assertion in Eisenstadt that the right to privacy entailed a right to choose whether to "bear" a child. Days after the court handed down Eisenstadt, Blackmun worked a reference to it into a draft of Doe, and later into Roe. Meanwhile, a federal court in Connecticut took the cue, declaring that Eisenstadt established a right to abortion. Justice Lewis Powell advised Blackmun to follow the Connecticut court's reasoning, and Blackmun ultimately did so, completing the daisy chain.
Crooked as a dog's hind leg.
Let the States decide.
[/hijack] Start another thread if you like.
-
I think it is clearly a States Rights issue. Abortion legality should be determined at the State level and not the Federal level.
There's another of the conservative hypocrisies- "Less Federal Government- Let States decide their own laws." That lasts until the States decide to implement something the Conservatives don't agree with- gay marriage, for example- then we need a federal mandate to prohibit those behaviors.
-
Strawman arguement.
I doubt you'll find a true conservative/libertarian that thinks the Feds should do anything more than what the Constitution originally allowed them to do, the enumerated powers of the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
The States should be sovereign in all else.
Not popular with the socialists here though.
-
So you are OK with California deciding for gay marriage Toad?
-
Yep, of course.
I doubt you can search up a post of mine saying anything otherwise. You've probably already forgotten that my position on that is that being married should not convey any special treatement (taxes, inheritance, health care, etc.) on anyone gay, straight or otherwise. So, once you cut out all special treatment, this whole marriage thing is moot. In any event, why should they not have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us? :D
States rule! :rock
Of course, I'd never, ever live in CA :rofl Not because of their stance on gay marriage though; the entire package of state law is just so fubared I would never consider it. Their taxes, their gun laws, their PC BS laws.... damn shame because in the north half I've seen a lot of places I'd probably like a lot.
But hey... we've got 50 states to choose from and I hear places like Idaho and Montana are beautiful and the legislatures aren't run by a bunch of socialists with their heads up their poop chutes. ;)
-
So you are OK with California deciding for gay marriage Toad?
We are OK with the PEOPLE of california deciding the issue of Gay Marriage.
Last I heard, didn't they decide against it?
-
Leaving civil rights issues up to a majority vote is just plain stupid.
-
But you just said that you are OK with the seperate states deciding on issues like gay marriage. What you really meant to say was that you are OK with Democrats of each state deciding on issues like gay marriage.
Wouldn't it be most logical for the residents to decide for themselves what would be a right in their state or not?
Of course it wouldn't. That's why we have liberal judges making laughable decisions deciding that the people shouldn't get what they want.
-
Prop 22 was overturned by the Cal SC which is how the system is allowed to work.
Prop 8 will be on the ballot in November which will try to overturn the Cal SC decision, which is how the system is allowed to work.
Look at it this way MT; if the people vote to ban it, those desiring it can move to MA. See? Isn't it great there are 50 states?
-
But you just said that you are OK with the seperate states deciding on issues like gay marriage. What you really meant to say was that you are OK with Democrats of each state deciding on issues like gay marriage.
Wouldn't it be most logical for the residents to decide for themselves what would be a right in their state or not?
Of course it wouldn't. That's why we have liberal judges making laughable decisions deciding that the people shouldn't get what they want.
1. I never said that.
2. If it were left up to strict majority rule, minorities would never have rights.
-
They'd have their US Constitutionally guaranteed rights, like <back on topic> the right to keep and bear arms and all the others incorporated under the 14th.
Unfortunately, I don't remember anything about marriage in our Constitution do you? Must be the Founders left that up to the individual states, as they did with so many other things.
-
whoa there carrel... I have always said that the only thing government should do is to raise armies and provide a court system and maybe some police to enforce it.
Now.. so far as abortion goes.. even you will have to admit that at some point.. you are simply killing another human being...
Now, as I have said in the past.. there are human beings that NEED killing. I can't for the life of me think of the crime the unborn are committing that I can give them a death sentence for. At some point a womans right to choose should end.. lest your mom could simply send someone over to your house to kill you.
This being murdered for no reason thing.. well.. that is something government should have a say in and the constitution should protect us from states rights on it. the constitution trumps states rights. interpretation is the sticking point of course but.. there is always secession. If you carrel wish to find me inconsistent that may be possible yet but you haven't even come close on this one.
As for civil rights.. the constitution should protect civil rights so far as.. all men are created equal.
Gay marriage is stretching civil rights so far past the breaking point that is is ludicrous.. it is like saying that not printing all government documents in swedish is a civil rights issue.
Marriage itself.. or at least the state sponsored extortion of benifiets for it (tax breaks etc.) may be a violation of our civil rights but restricting it to a man and a woman is not.. adding homos to the list of people makes it worse.
The better question should be.. do we allow any married couple extra benifiets? If so.. why? And how do we justify giving em them a tax break? we do because it is behavior we want to encourage (like home ownership) because we feel we will get something from it. children born and raised in the best possible way.
If we add homos.. we make it more unfair not less. it is now just whim... no logic at all.. it would be far more logical... and every bit as much of a civil rights issue to allow polygamy. any of a myriad of relationships possible are now being short changed in light of the ridiculous homosexual BS.
lazs
-
2. If it were left up to strict majority rule, minorities would never have rights.
and yet, we have a majority deciding how much to tax the minority. That is ok with you, huh?
-
and yet, we have a majority deciding how much to tax the minority. That is ok with you, huh?
You got that backwards.
Wait, no you don't. Very cleverly worded.
-
The ACLU getting blasted is a laugh enough for me.
-
Leaving civil rights issues up to a majority vote is just plain stupid.
Works that way in Congress. Senate. A Jury of your peers, etc...
It seems the civil rights you wish to impose on the majority aren't needed nor desired by the majority.
We already have to cow tow to the minorities enough around here. Don't beleive me? Call any major business and wait for the language options.
-
press 1 for English
It is f*nkg insulting
-
press 1 for English
It is f*nkg insulting
Could be #2..... :rofl
-
Could be #2..... :rofl
It IS, in MANY places.
-
So the Jim Crow laws in the South were OK with you guys as long as the majority approved of them? Amazing.
-
So the Jim Crow laws in the South were OK with you guys as long as the majority approved of them? Amazing.
Those laws were not Constitutional. End of story.
-
jim crow laws were wrong. All men are created equal. The states have no right to over rule the constitution. If they don't like it they can.. well.. should be able to.. leave.
You can't equate equality of outcome with equality of opportunity tho.
It is more discriminatory to not allow polygamy than it is to not allow gay marriage if you use the intent of marriage as a guide.
schools and marriage are both things that the government should stay out of. But then.. we should not be taxed for a general fund either. Any tax should be raised as an enterprise fund and used to pay for the exact thing it is raised for.. example.. road tax should be used only to build and maintain roads.
The ACLU has made a good living in missinterpreting the constitution and stretching the meaning of civil liberties to the breaking point... they are inconsistent tho when it comes to the second and even the most basic interpretation of our rights.. they ignore our most basic rights when it comes to the second yet go into minute and... tenuous detail on the others... so long as it attacks religion or gives one group extra rights over another.
Their agenda has just become more clear to more people... just as I had predicted it would.
lazs
-
We already have to cow tow to the minorities enough around here. Don't beleive me? Call any major business and wait for the language options.
So if I own a business and offer my services in several different languages that is "cow towing" to minorities? And all this time I thought we were trying to reach a broader market- I had no idea that some white people (I'm assuming you're white LePaul) would be offended by a business that offered Spanish language signs, operators or instructions.
You really are a sensitive guy LePaul.
Sheeesh.
:rolleyes:
-
carrel is not as wrong as he usually is on this...
Any business has the right to offer their service in any language or combo of languages that they please.. if it makes more money for them to offer spanish options then they would be foolish not too..
When the government does it then it is discrimination tho.. Polish speakers should not take a back seat to spanish speakers.. tho.. I would say about 99% of the polish speakers here speak english too.. of the spanish speakers.. probly 50% barely even speak much spanish.
lazs
-
Not to be totally wrong again Lazs, but if it's the Government they have a responsibility to reach as many people as they can, in as many languages as necessary. A business is driven by profit,, but a Government is driven by serevice. I would hope if it's important enough to be "official information" we'd do our best to get it out there, right?
-
That's not the point, that's not why "Press 1 for english" is so intolerably aberrant.
-
I remember when it used to be: "If you need assistance in a foreign language please contact the operator or press zero."
Before the ACLU began sueing over the right to access, people learned english very rapidly to be competitive as American citizens. American immigration laws were stricter and didn't allow the ACLU to balkanise the U.S. by making it effectivly a nonrequirement for 3rd world Bantus, Hamung, Somalis, south american\mexican indians, <place ethnicity here etc> to learn a word of the U.S. english language.
But then the ACLU always did sue over things that had a side benifit for the democrud party of creating new voter populations........legal or ilegal.....
-
Not to be totally wrong again Lazs, but if it's the Government they have a responsibility to reach as many people as they can, in as many languages as necessary. A business is driven by profit,, but a Government is driven by serevice. I would hope if it's important enough to be "official information" we'd do our best to get it out there, right?
what you said is just plain silly. Tower of Babel has already been tried. A mild succes if I remember correctly.
You wanna live here, learn the language. I did.
-
thank you carrel for restoring my faith in your ability to get it wrong.
No.. government is not service. least of all in pandering to one group in an unequal way. So long as english is the only language of government then it is as fair and equal as it can be.. when you add spanish then the polish (and every other language) speakers are discriminated against in an unfair manner.
It is either one language of every single known or possible language treated equally.. the latter is impossible so the only fair thing is the former.
It is also about contributing to the problem. People who only speak one language that is not english are relegated to second class citizens. For the government to sponsor them to continue such behavior is immoral. Just as welfare and other socialist programs have created inequality and missery.
If governments job is to provide for justice and to uphold the constitution and raise armies then to pick and choose what languages (besides english) that it wishes to pander to is exactly backwards..
If government is, as you see it, a "service" that takes from those who can according to their ability and gives to those who won't according to their need.... then yes.. the more screwed up and unfair it is the better...
in such a world there is no unfairness... only progress toward utopia.
The framers.. and most of us libertarians and conservatives, know that utopia is wrong.. that your utopia for instance is my hell.. how is that fair? Nope only the opportunity to make your own happiness.. the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the only fair thing.. the government is their only to make sure that everyone keeps their word.
lazs
-
When I came to this country I didn't know a single word of the language. It took me the better part of 3 years to learn it. Fortunately my father and mother were willing teachers. English is the language of the US. You wanna live here, learn it like everyone else has had to.
-
thank you carrel for restoring my faith in your ability to get it wrong.
lazs
You're welcome, Lazs- when you said I got something right it scared me, so I had to elaborate. :)
-
What was your birth language, Iron?
-
I often wonder whether the people who support our government communicating to people in multiple languages expect that other governments will pander to them when they visit those countries.
-
What was your birth language, Iron?
Same as everyone elses, "WWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!"
:P
-
I often wonder whether the people who support our government communicating to people in multiple languages expect that other governments will pander to them when they visit those countries.
Actually multiple language signs are more common in Europe than they are in America. I don't know if they do multiple language ballots like we do, but with the exception of the printing costs, which are miniscule in the whole scheme of things, I can't understand the objection to their use. I understand a common language (English) is our goal, but immigrants understand that also, for the most part, and in fact our local junior college had to double up on the night time Conversational English courses.
-
Actually multiple language signs are more common in Europe than they are in America. I don't know if they do multiple language ballots like we do, but with the exception of the printing costs, which are miniscule in the whole scheme of things, I can't understand the objection to their use. I understand a common language (English) is our goal, but immigrants understand that also, for the most part, and in fact our local junior college had to double up on the night time Conversational English courses.
I grew up in northern Vermont, so we naturally did have some signs in French and English. My mother's father spoke French when he was born in northern Vermont, but he learned English so that he could communicate and participate in our society.
I have no objections to anyone coming to live here and not understanding English, but are willing to learn. What I do object to are those that come here and expect us to learn their language so we can communicate with them.
-
Same as everyone elses, "WWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!"
:P
:aok
-
It does get a little old when you can't get a job anymore in Southern California unless you speak Spanish.
-
When I came to this country I didn't know a single word of the language. It took me the better part of 3 years to learn it. Fortunately my father and mother were willing teachers. English is the language of the US. You wanna live here, learn it like everyone else has had to.
I disagree. I think everyone in this world speeks one common language. The language I'm talking about is the Human Language. We are all one people who happen to come in all different shapes, colors, and dimensions.
-
I disagree. I think everyone in this world speeks one common language. The language I'm talking about is the Human Language. We are all one people who happen to come in all different shapes, colors, and dimensions.
Can you type something here in that human language you speak of? I think you'd make a good democrat/liberal/progressive.
-
Can you type something here in that human language you speak of? I think you'd make a good democrat/liberal/progressive.
I try to not put myself into categories. I am a proud American with numerous beliefs. Everyone wants to put a label on things. I just belive what I believe based on what I've experience in life. I think this world try's to find ways to put labels on things in order to create division and animosity towards eachother. I just hope the day comes when people realize that we are all one people floating around space on a big rock.
-
It does get a little old when you can't get a job anymore in Southern California unless you speak Spanish.
Where are you trying to find a job? The parking lot at Home Depot?
-
I try to not put myself into categories. I am a proud American with numerous beliefs. Everyone wants to put a label on things. I just belive what I believe based on what I've experience in life. I think this world try's to find ways to put labels on things in order to create division and animosity towards eachother. I just hope the day comes when people realize that we are all one people floating around space on a big rock.
Whattayaknow, I understood that perfectly. You sure that wasn't teh english?
-
twentyfo.. I think that the only people who every get upset about the labels are the ones who are ashamed of their beliefs... liberal socialists like yourself..
Mostly they go on about how we should just drop all labels and just get along as human beings.. the whole time advocating taking your freedoms away by force of government and forcing you into a utopia of their making that will be a living hell for any person with even the slightest bit of individuality and dignity.
No thanks on the outstretched hand.. I know it for the phony bs that it is. but then.. maybe you don't? even while you do it?
lazs
-
twentyfo.. I think that the only people who every get upset about the labels are the ones who are ashamed of their beliefs... liberal socialists like yourself..
Mostly they go on about how we should just drop all labels and just get along as human beings.. the whole time advocating taking your freedoms away by force of government and forcing you into a utopia of their making that will be a living hell for any person with even the slightest bit of individuality and dignity.
No thanks on the outstretched hand.. I know it for the phony bs that it is. but then.. maybe you don't? even while you do it?
lazs
Excuse me Sir.....but you are the one who has to put a label on everything. Sometimes things are the way they are because that's just the way it is. There is no need to categorize everything in this world. I think that's why you have so much hate built up in you. You get way too caught up in trying to figure out what the so called "liberal socialist agenda" is that you forget to enjoy the good things about life. To live your life in paranoia is by no means a healthy lifestyle. You will realize that your paranoia was a complete waste of time and that you haven't really enjoyed all you could have. Go right on and continue to live in your paranoid world
-
yes.. I am the one who put the label on it.. when someone espouses liberal socialist ideas I go and make the silly connection that they are liberal socialists.
lazs
-
So you are now labeling Laz as paranoid? Was that a professional diagnosis done over the intardnet?
You do see the hypocrisy do you not? I mean, how can you miss it?
-
I disagree. I think everyone in this world speeks one common language. The language I'm talking about is the Human Language. We are all one people who happen to come in all different shapes, colors, and dimensions.
Bull-diddlying-shit. Everyone in this world do all they can to kill each other. Mostly just for toejams and giggles.
-
If I were cynical, I'd find it funny how TwentyFo here may not get it for a dozen years, if ever.
-
Twentyfool is just tired of the labels that get applied to him. They all fit and none are flattering.
You are either the worlds most naive 12 year old kid, a great troll or an adult who should not reproduce, I mean that claptrap you posted about one language, thats strait out of some PBS muppet type show.
-
In 1939, USA vs. Miller, the SC ruled gun ownership to be a collective right.
HUH????
Pretty sure that was NOT contained in the ruling?
It was fairly vague but don't recall seeing a statement declaring the 2nd a COLLECTIVE right?
-
You'll have to forgive Carrel for that one. Like so many that espouse on Miller he probably never studied the case or the ruling.
-
It's just that the ACLU believes that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective one and therefore when a trigger is pulled, we do it collectively. This is not hypoctical at all, as we now that we are collectively at fault for gun crime. We all know that societal influences caused the individual to pick up a gun and walk into a 7-11 and demand that the cashier empty the cash drawer. It is the fault of us all.
Are you for REAL?
How you figure?
Are you saying I'm responsible for some one doing drugs, getting hooked, grabbing a weapon , and walking into a 7-11?
If you are I have to SCREAM B.S.!
I didn't make that person do any of that!
That person made choices! Bad choices perhaps, but they made the choice, I did NOT force it on them!
IMHO that kind of rhetoric is the PUREST form of B.S. specifically designed to make people feel GUILTY!
AND it is NOT predicated on the right of SELF DETERMINATION but more on a socialist everyone is responsible for everything approach to society. WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH!
Hey I was NOT responsible for the ENRON thing! You wanna try and make me responsible for the ENRON have a go at trying please be my guest! (think that reasoning of such would in and of itself might prove interesting)
-
Are you for REAL?
How you figure?
Are you saying I'm responsible for some one doing drugs, getting hooked, grabbing a weapon , and walking into a 7-11?
If you are I have to SCREAM B.S.!
I didn't make that person do any of that!
That person made choices! Bad choices perhaps, but they made the choice, I did NOT force it on them!
IMHO that kind of rhetoric is the PUREST form of B.S. specifically designed to make people feel GUILTY!
AND it is NOT predicated on the right of SELF DETERMINATION but more on a socialist everyone is responsible for everything approach to society. WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH!
Hey I was NOT responsible for the ENRON thing! You wanna try and make me responsible for the ENRON have a go at trying please be my guest! (think that reasoning of such would in and of itself might prove interesting)
"Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!"