1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

oddly, enough - ACLU again, on the right side

Discussion in 'Legal' started by roscoe, Feb 13, 2004.

  1. roscoe

    roscoe Well-Known Member

  2. George Hill

    George Hill Well-Known Member

    Now that is interesting.
  3. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    So they'll defend the right to use the word, but not to possess the the object.

    How perverse is that?

    {The DoublePlusUnPC School Choir: merrily, to the tune of "jingle bells"}

    gun, gun gun!
    gun, gun, gun!
    gun, gun, gun, gun, gun!
    gun gun gun, gun gun gun gun, gun gun gun gun gun,.....gun!
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2004
  4. Sven

    Sven Senior Member

  5. Michigander

    Michigander Well-Known Member


    :eek:Aaawwwwwww, you said a bad wooord!
  6. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Well-Known Member

    Right side, wrong reason.
  7. Mulliga

    Mulliga Well-Known Member

    I'm all for freedom of speech, but if you say something like that, even in a joking manner, you're kind of asking for somebody to punish you. Post-Columbine, people are sensitive, and for good reason.

    True story: A boy my friends and I teased for a while in high school became so depressed (not just because of us, but because a lot of other things, too) that he brought a bottle of vodka, two knives, and two loaded Beretta 92s to school...thankfully he bragged about it before he could do anything, but sometimes I wonder if he would have come after me...

    Of course, if such a thing were to happen now, the offender would get a faceful of lead...:(
  8. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Well-Known Member

    I'm a big ACLU booster -- well, not as big as I used to be, but still believe they do little harm and much good -- theirs sins are sins of omission, not comission.

    But this case -- sheesh.

    That's a terroristic threat. You don't joke about bombs at the airport, and you don't joke about taking a gun to school and killing people.

    The little brat got a $100 slap on the wrist -- looks like an excellent life lesson in not screwing around about these things.

    And it got appealed to the Supreme Court?

    What a joke.
  9. c_yeager

    c_yeager Well-Known Member

    whats the reason?
  10. The A.C.L.U. only defends those civil liberties which advance their marxist agenda. Here we have an example of what the A.C.L.U. delights in. A warped little nit who threatens his classmates. I'm sure the A.C.L.U.'s only disappointment is that the little rat didn't actually kill anyone.

    In this case, they are as usual, completely wrong. The little scumbag threatened his classmates, and subsequently recieved an absurdly light sentence.

    The American Criminal Liberties Union once again shows the stripes of its marxist beginings. Standing for all that is wrong in order to advance the "through the looking glass" paradigm shift that will allow them to dupe the American people with impunity.

    The commie rats at the A.C.L.U. might have as much as 60% of the American public buffaloed, an astounding feat really. One would think that people blessed with the gift of freedom at birth would know better. Go figure... :scrutiny: :barf:
  11. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    SCOTUS just decided nobody was threatened.
  12. c_yeager

    c_yeager Well-Known Member

    While i DONT agree with the ACLU's selective defense of the constitution. Not to mention their downright ANTI view of the 2nd amendment. i really dont see how defending freedom of speech is somehow furthering a "marxist agenda".
  13. Geech

    Geech Well-Known Member

    I'm siding with the ACLU on this case.

    You can't hold determine intent with just words, you have to examine the context: what the conversation was about at that time or what expressions and tones were being used. It doesn't even have to be a joke, either. How many times have you heard someone say something along the lines of "I could just kill him" when they're angry at someone? How many times have you said it? It's virtually never meant as a real threat and most people don't take it that way.

    Look at what the girl said, she even knew it was a joke. She didn't think he was threatening to shoot her; if she felt threatened at all, then it was because of that naughty G-word. "t freaked me out, 'cause we know that we're not supposed to say anything about bringing a gun or even say the word gun at school." How wicked of the boy to use such a term.

    If you disagree with the case, think long and hard about why. It seems like some of these might just be knee-jerk reactions to the involvement of the ACLU.
  14. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Well-Known Member

    If they would defend the Second Amendment even half as much as they defend the others, "gun" would not be a dirty word and this case would be a non-issue. The only reason this case made the news media was the word "gun" used with the word "school".
  15. Sippenhaft

    Sippenhaft Active Member

    I would agree, except for the "collective right" BS they pimp on their website:
    Thats not "gun neutral" or "leaving it to other, better funded rights organizations" as many of their fanboys say; thats anti-gun propaganda, and the fact it comes from one of the most prestigious defenders of the Bill of Rights it gives that position a lot of weight.

    I think they do a lot of good work too (including here- reading the article, I don't see anything particularly Marxist in this outcome; if anything, the complete taboo of a word, regardless of context, seems a lot more in line with totalitarianships), but on the second amendment, they do more than "omit;" they do not protect a right that is under attack (while claiming on their website "Defending the Bill of Rights," not "Defending the parts of the Bill of Rights that will garner us more liberal donations") while actively parroting the anti-gun rights position and letting their prestige give that position merit.
  16. I disagree with the case because A) I live in close proximity to this little rat B) I'm sick and tired of little rats like him C) I'm sick and tired of punks who threaten people with guns D) Did I mention that I'm sick and tired of these punks?

    Maybe you think that the sheeple will stand for another 2-3 thousand Columbines. I happen to think not. Maybe you think that it's cute for a punk to say things like "I'm going to bring a gun to school tomorrow and shoot everyone and start with you ... maybe not you first." I think not. Nor do I believe, not even for a moment, that the little rat was joking. SCOTUS notwithstanding.

    Try thinking about it this way. Selective defense of civil rights that will subsequently result in social upheaval, and the requisite crackdown by the state, is what marxists delight in. Ask yourself 'What is the one item that I possess that really helps to assure my freedom?' Then ask yourself 'Which civil right is it again that the American Criminal Liberties Union does not defend, and which item(s) does that civil right specifically speak to?'

    The A.C.L.U. was founded by an avowed marxist. In the entirety of their existence I have never seen, or heard of, them making a political shift from their foundation.

    It's really quite this simple. If the A.C.L.U. is what they claim to be (and what some of you seem to think they are) why then do they stand on established case law for their supposed "neutral" position on the 2nd Amendment??? Why is it that they - the self-described warriors for civil rights - do not recognize that "the People" (not the state) are specifically ascribed the "right to keep and bear arms"? The A.C.L.U. says that the courts have held the 2nd A to be a collective (state) right. And yet the 2nd A says "the people". Does that then mean that those self-same "people" mentioned in the 1st A are afforded only a collective right to free speech? No A.C.L.U. attorney would ever suggest such an absurdity. And should SCOTUS find that right to be a collective one, do you think that the A.C.L.U. would then frame their position with regard to the 1st A as being 'the courts have found the First Amendment to be a collective right'?

    HAH! Ya right! They would be challenging a finding like that everyday in the courts all over this land.

    For that matter, if the marxist scum in this country had the guts to arm themselves in meaningful numbers, the A.C.L.U. would do a 180 on the 2nd A that would make your heads spin. They'd do it before you could blink.
  17. SAG0282

    SAG0282 Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't say they were on the right side, and I certainly wouldn't say that their side is OUR side.

    Do we responsible gun owners threaten people?? Nope. Now, had he been engaged in discussion about the relative virtues of SIGs and Glocks in a non-threatenting manner, that is one thing. But as others have noted, this is fairly described as a "terroristic threat".

    We responsible gun owners should repudiate his actions and support the sanctions against him.
  18. Bill Hook

    Bill Hook member

    This is a felony??????????

    It should've been up to the school to deal with it, via expulsion. I'm with the ACLU on this too.
  19. BenW

    BenW Well-Known Member

    Has the ACLU ever jumped into any of the cases involving kids being suspended or expelled for GI Joe guns or drawing pictures of guns? If not, it's a little strange for them to jump into defending someone for using the word "gun" in a threat, but ignoring something as innocent as drawing a picture of one.
  20. Geech

    Geech Well-Known Member

    Maybe you think context is irrelevant. I don't.

Share This Page