ACLU to defend Rush

[w4rma]

As usual, the ACLU stands up for EVERYBODY'S civil rights, unlike just about every other group.

 

[MrAcheson]

Yeah sure they do, I think we've already covered a bunch of the people they don't.

 

[Sean Smith]

w4rma,

As usual, the ACLU stands up for EVERYBODY'S civil rights, unlike just about every other group.

As long as your civil right isn't the right to keep and bear arms. Try reading the ACLU web site, you might learn something.

...the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala" won't make the ACLU's own statements go away.

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.

"...shall not be infringed" being a peculiar way for something to be "left open."

There seems to be a willful desire to pretend that the ACLU's own statements on their web site flat-out don't exist or something. But reality is a bitch. I'm not quoting Newsmax or Fox News or some other right-leaning media outlet... but the ACLU website.

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

I'm actually not opposed to a fair amount of what the ACLU does. But their taking a public position against one of my civil rights is too much for me, personally, to stomach. The idea that this is somehow an indefensible point of view for me to hold strikes me as bizarre.

 

[Dorrin79]

The idea that this is somehow an indefensible point of view for me to hold strikes me as bizarre.

Hey, man, it's cool!

I wasn't referring to you, or anyone else who says "ACLU is ok, but I can't support a group that has a negative opinion of one of my core civil rights"

I was referring to the knee-jerk "Damn Commie Pinko...." lines of "reasoning" that seem to come out in spades whenever the ACLU comes up.

And don't get me wrong - if I am ever made aware of the ACLU actively supporting an anti-gun court case or policy decision then I will cease supporting them.

Their "neutral" stance is stupid, but I think when balanced against their strong points they are still worthy of my support.

You disagree, and that's cool.

 

[Sean Smith]

I'd love to hear how someone can reconcile this:

The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

With this:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control.

By way of this:

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it.

Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

How can you be "neutral" on an issue that pertains to the constitutional rights that your organization exists to protect? And how can you be "neutral" if you take sides on that same issue? I can't be the only person here that sees a colossal logical disconnect here, can I?

If this is neutrality, I'd rather have an outright enemy.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

(Mpayne will hate this line) GOD BLESS RUSH LIMBAUGH

How do you figure?

I may doubt the existence of God; I may doubt Rush's blessing status if there is a God, but I have absolutely no problem with your sentiment.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

If this is neutrality, I'd rather have an outright enemy.

Your lack of logic is disturbing.

The ACLU doesn't litigate RKBA cases on either side. That is neutrality.

You'd rather have another Brady Campaign fighting against our rights that the ACLU explaining why they choose to ignore them?

Whatever.

 

[fix]

Your lack of logic is disturbing.

It's called principles, not lack of logic.

 

[Sean Smith]

Whatever.

That is sure a convincing response!

The ACLU doesn't litigate RKBA cases on either side. That is neutrality.

If a politican never enacted a law involving free speech, but had the following as part of his platform, would YOU consider him "neutral" on the issue of free speech?

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict free speech, but how much to restrict it."

With the statements on THEIR OWN WEB SITE, the ACLU has aligned itself with the views of "Brady Campaign" quite clearly. For being "neutral," they are in quite perfect ideological harmony with radical anti-RKBA groups. It is written in Standard American English and everything.

 

[Master Blaster]

It does seem like a witch hun based upon who he is to me.

Usually when a junky gets caught making a buy (red handed even) on their first offense the junky gets simple possession, and then a fine (its usually a misdemeaner in most jurisdictions). Sometimes if they are charged with a felony, they get probation for a first offense.

Conspiracy???, how about RICO, or treason, or a plot to overthrow the new world order by taking drugs and talking on the radio to incite a revolution

He's a junky 1st offense no violence, should have been plead to a fine and probation.

Now the person selling him the drugs (his maid) is a dealer, and involved in a crimminal conspiracy to distribute drugs, but they get a deal for turning in their pathetic junky customer off of whom they have profited, and even threatened blackmail (a serious felony).

***

 

[Sean Smith]

Imagine this conversation. Perhaps an interview with a politician?

Q: "What is your position on the right to keep and bear arms?"

A: "The possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

Q: "Really. Isn't that rather extreme?"

A: " No. The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it."

Q: "So you are opposed to the right to keep and bear arms?"

A: "No, I'm neutral on the issue of gun control."

"Neutral" indeed, with bold being straight from the figurative mouth of that crazy right-wing bastion of spin, the ACLU website.

 

[w4rma]

The ACLU's position on the second amendment is the exact same position that the U.S. Supreme Court (of which a majority are Republican appointed) and most of the other courts in the nation hold. Whether that is the reading intended by the founders (I don't think that it is, I think the founders wanted U.S. citizens to have the means to rebel - "blood of patriots") or isn't doesn't really matter. The fact of the matter is that the ACLU doesn't want to get involved in that fight and alienate one side or the other. Unfortunately, alot of folks have bought into the propaganda that the ACLU isn't helping to protect our rights and they help the statists and the fascists in destroying our rights by helping them demonize one more protector of most of our Bill of Rights.

 

[Sean Smith]

The fact of the matter is that the ACLU doesn't want to get involved in that fight and alienate one side or the other.

A peculiar argument, since the ACLU is famous for not caring who it alienates as long as it is "defending peoples' rights." Or some of them, anyway. Would they defend NAMBLA if they cared if they alienated anybody?

Again, we are left with the ACLU saying that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. They didn't have to take an openly hostile stance to the 2nd Ammendment; if they could not agree among themselves what position to take, they could have said that they don't take a position on it and leave it at that. But they DID take a position, and that position is that there is no right to keep and bear arms. How can we reasonably conclude that this represents anything but open hostility to the very concept of the right to keep and bear arms?

If they were really neutral, they wouldn't have openly denied the very existence of one of our constitutional rights. You can't much clearer than that.

The ACLU's position on the second amendment is the exact same position that the U.S. Supreme Court (of which a majority are Republican appointed) and most of the other courts in the nation hold.

At one time the position of the Supreme Court and most other courts in the nation was that black people had no rights. Hiding behind the robes of judges is a cop-out, and has all the ethical weight of the between-song patter at a Kid Rock concert. Again, a peculiar argument since the ACLU has as often as not run counter to judicial conventional wisdom for decades...

Let's compare the ACLU's declared position concerning the right to keep and bear arms to the opening lines of The High Road's "Rules of Conduct":

Welcome to The High Road, an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it

(emphasis mine in both cases)

So the ACLU believes in restricting what THR seeks to promote.

 

[jimpeel]

Derek Zeanah

Bush: drunk driving and a coke habit in his past, but now he's also a righteous drug warrior.

Perhaps you missed the word when it was passed; but the "tell-all" book that was written about Bush's "coke habit", and its author, were so roundly discredited that the publisher recalled all unsold copies and took them to the dump.

I don't care who you are or what your status, there are always those who will come forward and say "Yeah, we used to do <fill in blank> together when we were in <fill in blank>." To believe that Bush was a coke-head who never did it in the presence of another person, or that those who did do it with him are so "honorable" -- or have such blind allegiance to him -- that not one of them would come forward is ludicrous.

This is very old and very discredited news you are attempting to disseminate.

 

[MrAcheson]

The ACLU's position on the second amendment is the exact same position that the U.S. Supreme Court (of which a majority are Republican appointed) and most of the other courts in the nation hold.

(1) The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on a 2nd A case in something like 70 years IIRC. That being the case how do you know the interpretation of the current one.
(2) That doesn't make them right.
(3) Please stop trolling and let this thread die.

 

[jimpeel]

 

[w4rma]

Perhaps you missed the word when it was passed; but the "tell-all" book that was written about Bush's "coke habit", and its author, were so roundly discredited that the publisher recalled all unsold copies and took them to the dump.

...
Mr Bush's evasions over drugs have brought accusations of hypocrisy from critics, who recalled the Republicans' relentless pursuit of President Clinton over his relationship with the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

A Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen, pointed out that as Texas governor, Mr Bush favoured tough prison sentences for anyone caught with even a gram of cocaine: "Using cocaine is a crime for which many go to jail. The issue, then, is not so much what Bush did in the past but whether he is a hypocrite in the present."

• "I wasn't interested in taking root. I was having fun." 1997

• "When I was young and irresponsible, that's exactly what I was - young and irresponsible," 1997

• "I kind of floated and saw a lot of life." On his rootless period in the 1960s

• "I've assumed the mantle of being a governor and a father in a responsible way, and the signal we ought to send to our children is that in spite of what happened in the 60s and 70s we have learned some lessons. And the lesson ought to be, don't be using drugs and alcohol. Learn the lessons from the past." 1998

• "I'm not going to talk about what I did years ago. This is a game where they float rumours, force a person to fight off a rumour - then they will float another rumour. And I'm not going to participate - I've told people that I've learned from my mistakes - and I have. And I'm going to leave it at that." July 1999

• "Not only could I pass the background checks of the standards in today's White House, I could have passed the back-check on the standards applied on the more stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - which is a 15-year period. Should I become the president, my pledge to the American people is that I would uphold the dignity and honour of the office to which I have been elected." Yesterday
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,270406,00.html

For someone who you say never used cocaine, he sure is evasive about it. Also, from what I have read he probably deserted the Texas National Guard to go snort the stuff.

 

[Sean Smith]

I'm punching out of this thread. Have fun without me.

 

[dustind]

(of which a majority are Republican appointed)

Was that true when they last ruled 70 years ago? or are you talking about the SC now, which is irrelivent.

 

[w4rma]

Was that true when they last ruled 70 years ago? or are you talking about the SC now, which is irrelivent.

It was true 70 years ago (Remember FDR was elected after about 30 years of mostly Republican Presidents), and is true now.

 

[jimpeel]

w4rma

For someone who you say never used cocaine, he sure is evasive about it. Also, from what I have read he probably deserted the Texas National Guard to go snort the stuff.

So in your world, all denials are admissions, and probability is actuality. Supposition and conjecture are all that are needed for a conviction.

He states that he is not going to participate in the political mudslinging rumor mill; and that is indicative of his guilt.

Also, I never said he "never used cocaine". I said that those who have accused him of using it have never been able to produce a single shred of evidence to that end. The only guy who was ever taken seriously, and who wrote a book about Bush's supposed cocaine use, was so severely discredited that his publisher threw out his books and threw him off their author list.

In your profile, you state that your location is "United States of America". You sure don't act like it.

Sean Smith just bailed out of this thread so I guess that means that he has something to hide because he will no longer participate in the thread.

 

[Monkeyleg]

I've tried and tried to stay away from w4rma's posts because they remind me of other posts from folks who came and went at convenient times.

Remember Michael from TFL who showed up in 2000 just in time to champion John McCain, then disappeared after McCain lost the nomination? Michael sounded sincere, and almost was to the point of being able to sell ice to eskimos.

Then there was CommonSense, who arrived here on THR right when the WI state legislature was debating the concealed carry bill and tried every which way to convince THR members that it was a bad bill. Once the guv vetoed the bill, CommonSense was nowhere to be found. Now that we have override sessions coming up next week, I wonder if he'll resurface to spread his lies again?

There have been countless others who show up at the most convenient times, and disappear at the most conspicuous times.

If w4rma sticks around after next November, I owe him a beer or a lunch (his choice). If he disappears, well, we know what his purpose here was.

 

[jimpeel]

Monkeyleg

 

[Art Eatman]

Guess what?

Art