The Fair and Balanced ACLU. These guys are SO funny!

[Shuckins]

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!   

[Toad]

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

[Toad]

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

[Hajo]

Toad LOL that is priceless 

[culero]

Toad LOL that is priceless 

LMAO NS! 

[SteveBailey]

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.

[moot]

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.

[GtoRA2]

Maybe deep down they still have that communist agenda thing going on.  They have really made a mistake here. 

[moot]

Maybe deep down they still have that communist agenda thing going on.  

[lazs2]

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

[Toad]

Nah, they still have "reasonable restriction". To a liberal, a reasonable restriction on firearms is that no one can have one.

[lazs2]

They just want to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

guess what..  you have the wrong hands.



lazs

[Toad]

Everyone has the wrong hands. Except their bodyguards, of course.

[lazs2]

they would probly make an exception for the riot police too.

lazs

[Carrel]

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.