Snowdiver
Member
I do not concede this either. My right is just that my right to keep and BEAR ARMS, this has been my right, my fathers right , my grandfathers right and it WILL be my SON'S RIGHT.
The ACLU on guns
- Thread starter .cheese.
- Start date
- Status
Its an interesting thread to read. WHen I read a NRA thread its a bunch of "they do more harm than good, they're the best lobby we have for the 2nd amendment, you have to join them."
When it comes to an ACLU thread I would naturally expect to read "i wish they supported the individual right of the 2nd, but they're the biggest lobby for our other freedoms, as long as they don't do any harm to the 2nd support them." Instead I see posts saying how 70-90 years ago there were communists in the ACLU so we shouldn't join them today....
Its weird how those things work on gun boards.
When it comes to an ACLU thread I would naturally expect to read "i wish they supported the individual right of the 2nd, but they're the biggest lobby for our other freedoms, as long as they don't do any harm to the 2nd support them." Instead I see posts saying how 70-90 years ago there were communists in the ACLU so we shouldn't join them today....
Its weird how those things work on gun boards.
------quote-------
although I would never do it, I don't think flag burning should be illegal so long as you own the flag and its done in a manner that does not risk catching anything on fire (I sorta see it as both a property thing and a speech thing, you buy the flag and you are allowed to speak against the government); I am somewhat pro-choice
-------------------
I wasn't expressing agreement or disagreement with the ACLU's stances on these issues - I happen to agree with one of them and disagree on the other - but that's not the point.
My point is that they advertise themselves as being proponents of civil rights in general, and always support the broadest possible interpretation of the language of the constitution. In most cases, they are always trying to expand the interpretation to include new rights and new manifestations of rights that the founders never could possibly have had in mind.
Except, in this one case, they adopt a tortured and bizarre reading of the 2nd ammendment that guts it and makes it totally meaningless.
Every other right, they read in a way that strengthens and expands it - sometimes to ridiculous extent. But this one right, they choose to read in a way that fatally weakens it.
I'm sorry, but that is not intellectually honest. It is not principled.
In fact, it is downright dangerous because it sets a precedent that whenever there is an item in the bill of rights that's inconvenient or conflicts with your agenda, all you have to do is come up with a new twisted interpretation of it and "poof" it's gone.
Nobody who is purely motivated by a concern for civil liberties is going to sanction this procedure.
And I'm sorry, but it's not "confusion" either. Anyone who has read the rest of the bill of rights, or any of the writings of the founders, knows what they meant. When they wrote "the right of the people" that's what they meant. Neither the language nor the context is even remotely ambiguous, unless you have an agenda and you're looking for a loophole.
Nor do I buy the take that the ACLU protects all the other rights and the NRA protects the 2nd. It is not acceptable in a civil rights organization to pick and choose which civil rights you think are obsolete, or only exercised by rednecks, and then pretend they don't exist.
although I would never do it, I don't think flag burning should be illegal so long as you own the flag and its done in a manner that does not risk catching anything on fire (I sorta see it as both a property thing and a speech thing, you buy the flag and you are allowed to speak against the government); I am somewhat pro-choice
-------------------
I wasn't expressing agreement or disagreement with the ACLU's stances on these issues - I happen to agree with one of them and disagree on the other - but that's not the point.
My point is that they advertise themselves as being proponents of civil rights in general, and always support the broadest possible interpretation of the language of the constitution. In most cases, they are always trying to expand the interpretation to include new rights and new manifestations of rights that the founders never could possibly have had in mind.
Except, in this one case, they adopt a tortured and bizarre reading of the 2nd ammendment that guts it and makes it totally meaningless.
Every other right, they read in a way that strengthens and expands it - sometimes to ridiculous extent. But this one right, they choose to read in a way that fatally weakens it.
I'm sorry, but that is not intellectually honest. It is not principled.
In fact, it is downright dangerous because it sets a precedent that whenever there is an item in the bill of rights that's inconvenient or conflicts with your agenda, all you have to do is come up with a new twisted interpretation of it and "poof" it's gone.
Nobody who is purely motivated by a concern for civil liberties is going to sanction this procedure.
And I'm sorry, but it's not "confusion" either. Anyone who has read the rest of the bill of rights, or any of the writings of the founders, knows what they meant. When they wrote "the right of the people" that's what they meant. Neither the language nor the context is even remotely ambiguous, unless you have an agenda and you're looking for a loophole.
Nor do I buy the take that the ACLU protects all the other rights and the NRA protects the 2nd. It is not acceptable in a civil rights organization to pick and choose which civil rights you think are obsolete, or only exercised by rednecks, and then pretend they don't exist.
I think that, because there are more dems than republicans in the ACLU and that we have been given the impression all dems are for gun control (which isn't true because I'm a Democrat that is against gun control), the ACLU is afraid of loosing support and not having the funding to do anything. The NRA has made concessions as well. Nearly every group involved in the political world (which both groups are) is deathly afraid of loosing money. I think that if more people were to right to the ACLU and tell them they would lend them some form of support if they defended 2a rights they would do it. But most people simply write them off that are pro-gun, therefore they might be afraid if they fight gun control they will lose their funding. And EVERY group needs funding.
I do agree though it is hypocritical, but I like their defense of the other ammendments.
As far as not conceeding having a right to own nuclear warheads etc., If you allowed people to buy WMDs they could buy things like the Ebola virus, genetically engineered Anthrax and the like.
I think that it does end beyond ordinary ordinance (we should be able to own machine guns, bazookas, mortars; but we can't let everyone own WMDs. It would mean the end of the human race.)
I do agree though it is hypocritical, but I like their defense of the other ammendments.
As far as not conceeding having a right to own nuclear warheads etc., If you allowed people to buy WMDs they could buy things like the Ebola virus, genetically engineered Anthrax and the like.
I think that it does end beyond ordinary ordinance (we should be able to own machine guns, bazookas, mortars; but we can't let everyone own WMDs. It would mean the end of the human race.)
Titan6
member
-sigh-
It is my fault. I should have posted the article with the link. It is too long though. Here is the first chapter. All will be made quite clear.
The Embarrassing Second Amendment
Sanford Levinson
University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659
One of the best known pieces of American popular art in this century is the New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg presenting a map of the United States as seen by a New Yorker, As most readers can no doubt recall, Manhattan dominates the map; everything west of the Hudson is more or less collapsed together and minimally displayed to the viewer. Steinberg's great cover depends for its force on the reality of what social psychologists call "cognitive maps." If one asks inhabitants ostensibly of the same cities to draw maps of that city, one will quickly discover that the images carried around in people's minds will vary by race, social class, and the like. What is true of maps of places --that they differ according to the perspectives of the mapmakers--is certainly true of all conceptual maps.
To continue the map analogy, consider in this context the Bill of Rights; is there an agreed upon "projection" of the concept? Is there even a canonical text of the Bill of Rights? Does it include the first eight, nine, or ten Amendments to the Constitution? [1] Imagine two individuals who are asked to draw a "map" of the Bill of Rights. One is a (stereo-) typical member of the American Civil Liberties Union (of which I am a card-carrying member); the other is an equally (stereo-) typical member of the "New Right." The first, I suggest, would feature the First Amendment [2] as Main Street, dominating the map, though more, one suspects, in its role as protector of speech and prohibitor of established religion than as guardian of the rights of religious believers. The other principal avenues would be the criminal procedures aspects of the Constitution drawn from the Fourth, [3] Fifth, [4] Sixth, [5] and Eighth [6] Amendments. Also depicted prominently would be the Ninth Amendment, [7] although perhaps as in the process of construction. I am confident that the ACLU map would exclude any display of the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment [8] or of the Tenth Amendment. [9]
The second map, drawn by the New Rightist, would highlight the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, [10] the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment, [11] and the Tenth Amendment. [12] Perhaps the most notable difference between the two maps, though, would be in regard to the Second Amendment: "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." What would be at most a blind alley for the ACLU mapmaker would, I am confident, be a major boulevard in the map drawn by the New Right adherent. It is this last anomaly that I want to explore in this essay.
I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment
To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion --law reviews, [13] casebooks, [14] and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." [15]
Both Laurence Tribe [16] and the Illinois team of Nowak, Rotunda, and Young [17] at least acknowledge the existence of the Second Amendment in their respective treatises on constitutional law, perhaps because the treatise genre demands more encyclopedic coverage than does the casebook. Neither, however, pays it the compliment of extended analysis. Both marginalize the Amendment by relegating it to footnotes; it becomes what a deconstructionist might call a "supplement" to the ostensibly "real" Constitution that is privileged by discussion in the text. [18] Professor Tribe's footnote appears as part of a general discussion of congressional power. He asserts that the history of the Amendment "indicate that the central concern of [its] framers was to prevent such federal interferences with the state militia as would permit the establishment of a standing national army and the consequent destruction of local autonomy." [19] He does note, how ever, that "the debates surrounding congressional approval of the second amendment do contain references to individual self-protection as well as to states' rights," but he argues that the qualifying phrase "'well regulated" makes any invocation of the Amendment as a restriction on state or local gun control measures extremely problematic." [20] Nowak, Rotunda, and Young mention the Amendment in the context of the incorporation controversy, though they discuss its meaning at slightly greater length. [21] They state that "[t]he Supreme Court has not determined, at least not with any clarity, whether the amendment protects only a right of state governments against federal interference with state militia and police forces.. .or a right of individuals against the federal and state government." [22]
Clearly the Second Amendment is not the only ignored patch of text in our constitutional conversations. One will find extraordinarily little discussion about another one of the initial Bill of Rights, the Third Amendment: "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." Nor does one hear much about letters of marque and reprisal [23] or the granting of titles of nobility. [24] There are, however, some differences that are worth noting.
The Third Amendment, to take the easiest case, is ignored because it is in fact of no current importance what whatsoever (although it did, for obvious reasons, have importance at the time of the founding). It has never, for a single instant, been viewed by any body of modern lawyers or groups of laity as highly relevant to their legal or political concerns. For this reason, there is almost no case law on the Amendment. [25] I suspect that few among even the highly sophisticated readers of the Journal can summon up the Amendment without the aid of the text.
The Second Amendment, though, is radically different from these other pieces of constitutional text just mentioned, which all share the attribute of being basically irrelevant to any ongoing political struggles. To grasp the difference, one might simply begin by noting that it is not at all unusual for the Second Amendment to show up in letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. [26] That judges and academic lawyers, including the ones that write casebooks, ignore it is most certainly not evidence for the proposition that no one else cares about it. The National Rifle Association, to name the most obvious example, cares deeply about the Amendment, and an apparently serious Senator of the United States averred that the right to keep and bear arms is the "right most valued by free men." [27] Campaigns for Congress in both political parties, and even presidential campaigns, may turn on the apparent commitment of the candidates to a particular view of the Second Amendment. This reality of the political process reflects the fact that millions of Americans, even if (or perhaps especially if) they are not academics, can quote the Amendment and would disdain any presentation of the Bill of Rights that did not give it a place of pride.
I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, [28] is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay --The Embarrassing Second Amendment -- for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights (such as most members of the ACLU). Indeed, one sometimes discovers members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU, differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU.
It is not my style to offer "correct" or "incorrect" interpretations of the Constitution. [29] My major interest is in delineating the rhetorical structures of American constitutional argument and elaborating what is sometimes called the "politics of interpretation," that is, the factors that explain why one or another approach will appeal to certain analysts at certain times, while other analysts, or times, will favor quite different approaches. Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well. In some contexts, this would lead me to label as tendentious the certainty of NRA advocates that the Amendment means precisely what they assert it does. In this particular context--i.e., the pages of a journal whose audience is much more likely to be drawn from an elite, liberal portion of the public--I will instead be suggesting that the skepticism should run in the other direction, That is, we might consider the possibility that "our" views of the Amendment, perhaps best reflected in Professor Tribe's offhand treatment of it, might themselves be equally deserving of the "tendentious" label.
It is my fault. I should have posted the article with the link. It is too long though. Here is the first chapter. All will be made quite clear.
The Embarrassing Second Amendment
Sanford Levinson
University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659
One of the best known pieces of American popular art in this century is the New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg presenting a map of the United States as seen by a New Yorker, As most readers can no doubt recall, Manhattan dominates the map; everything west of the Hudson is more or less collapsed together and minimally displayed to the viewer. Steinberg's great cover depends for its force on the reality of what social psychologists call "cognitive maps." If one asks inhabitants ostensibly of the same cities to draw maps of that city, one will quickly discover that the images carried around in people's minds will vary by race, social class, and the like. What is true of maps of places --that they differ according to the perspectives of the mapmakers--is certainly true of all conceptual maps.
To continue the map analogy, consider in this context the Bill of Rights; is there an agreed upon "projection" of the concept? Is there even a canonical text of the Bill of Rights? Does it include the first eight, nine, or ten Amendments to the Constitution? [1] Imagine two individuals who are asked to draw a "map" of the Bill of Rights. One is a (stereo-) typical member of the American Civil Liberties Union (of which I am a card-carrying member); the other is an equally (stereo-) typical member of the "New Right." The first, I suggest, would feature the First Amendment [2] as Main Street, dominating the map, though more, one suspects, in its role as protector of speech and prohibitor of established religion than as guardian of the rights of religious believers. The other principal avenues would be the criminal procedures aspects of the Constitution drawn from the Fourth, [3] Fifth, [4] Sixth, [5] and Eighth [6] Amendments. Also depicted prominently would be the Ninth Amendment, [7] although perhaps as in the process of construction. I am confident that the ACLU map would exclude any display of the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment [8] or of the Tenth Amendment. [9]
The second map, drawn by the New Rightist, would highlight the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, [10] the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment, [11] and the Tenth Amendment. [12] Perhaps the most notable difference between the two maps, though, would be in regard to the Second Amendment: "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." What would be at most a blind alley for the ACLU mapmaker would, I am confident, be a major boulevard in the map drawn by the New Right adherent. It is this last anomaly that I want to explore in this essay.
I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment
To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion --law reviews, [13] casebooks, [14] and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." [15]
Both Laurence Tribe [16] and the Illinois team of Nowak, Rotunda, and Young [17] at least acknowledge the existence of the Second Amendment in their respective treatises on constitutional law, perhaps because the treatise genre demands more encyclopedic coverage than does the casebook. Neither, however, pays it the compliment of extended analysis. Both marginalize the Amendment by relegating it to footnotes; it becomes what a deconstructionist might call a "supplement" to the ostensibly "real" Constitution that is privileged by discussion in the text. [18] Professor Tribe's footnote appears as part of a general discussion of congressional power. He asserts that the history of the Amendment "indicate
Clearly the Second Amendment is not the only ignored patch of text in our constitutional conversations. One will find extraordinarily little discussion about another one of the initial Bill of Rights, the Third Amendment: "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." Nor does one hear much about letters of marque and reprisal [23] or the granting of titles of nobility. [24] There are, however, some differences that are worth noting.
The Third Amendment, to take the easiest case, is ignored because it is in fact of no current importance what whatsoever (although it did, for obvious reasons, have importance at the time of the founding). It has never, for a single instant, been viewed by any body of modern lawyers or groups of laity as highly relevant to their legal or political concerns. For this reason, there is almost no case law on the Amendment. [25] I suspect that few among even the highly sophisticated readers of the Journal can summon up the Amendment without the aid of the text.
The Second Amendment, though, is radically different from these other pieces of constitutional text just mentioned, which all share the attribute of being basically irrelevant to any ongoing political struggles. To grasp the difference, one might simply begin by noting that it is not at all unusual for the Second Amendment to show up in letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. [26] That judges and academic lawyers, including the ones that write casebooks, ignore it is most certainly not evidence for the proposition that no one else cares about it. The National Rifle Association, to name the most obvious example, cares deeply about the Amendment, and an apparently serious Senator of the United States averred that the right to keep and bear arms is the "right most valued by free men." [27] Campaigns for Congress in both political parties, and even presidential campaigns, may turn on the apparent commitment of the candidates to a particular view of the Second Amendment. This reality of the political process reflects the fact that millions of Americans, even if (or perhaps especially if) they are not academics, can quote the Amendment and would disdain any presentation of the Bill of Rights that did not give it a place of pride.
I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, [28] is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay --The Embarrassing Second Amendment -- for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights (such as most members of the ACLU). Indeed, one sometimes discovers members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU, differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU.
It is not my style to offer "correct" or "incorrect" interpretations of the Constitution. [29] My major interest is in delineating the rhetorical structures of American constitutional argument and elaborating what is sometimes called the "politics of interpretation," that is, the factors that explain why one or another approach will appeal to certain analysts at certain times, while other analysts, or times, will favor quite different approaches. Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well. In some contexts, this would lead me to label as tendentious the certainty of NRA advocates that the Amendment means precisely what they assert it does. In this particular context--i.e., the pages of a journal whose audience is much more likely to be drawn from an elite, liberal portion of the public--I will instead be suggesting that the skepticism should run in the other direction, That is, we might consider the possibility that "our" views of the Amendment, perhaps best reflected in Professor Tribe's offhand treatment of it, might themselves be equally deserving of the "tendentious" label.
The ACLU does not prohibit organized religion, they merely want it seperated from the state and public institutions. This I agree with, when I was growing up I was an atheist; I'm not sure now, but still the point is if you have prayer in public schools that is sorta forcing a belief on someone. For example, what prayer should we say? Maybe a muslim prayer? I'm sure that wouldn't go over to well. A Jewish prayer? A Catholic prayer? A Protestant prayer? (yes, I know both Catholics and Protestants have most of the same prayers, but their are some differences in how they pray) A recitation of the tenents of humanism (a moral/ethical/almost "religous" (I put the quotations because its almost an equvailent of religious code for atheists/agnostics or I guess anyone who wants to follow it) code developed mostly by atheists/agnostics promoting peace and enlightenment)?
Also they put the Ten Commandments outside of courthouses in some areas, which a legal struggle is currently going on about. Some of the Ten Commandments are not law.
Now like I said, I myself am exploring opening up my spirituality, but let church be at church and school be at school (now if its a private school thats different) and court be at court. As one minister I know said, he wouldn't even want them teaching religion in school because they are not the experts on it.
Also they put the Ten Commandments outside of courthouses in some areas, which a legal struggle is currently going on about. Some of the Ten Commandments are not law.
Now like I said, I myself am exploring opening up my spirituality, but let church be at church and school be at school (now if its a private school thats different) and court be at court. As one minister I know said, he wouldn't even want them teaching religion in school because they are not the experts on it.
Debating the ACLU on a board like this seems like a waste of time. If you are socially conservative on the issues of abortion, homosexuality, pornography, creation/evolution, etc.- you will see it one way.
If you are liberal on those issues- you will likely love the ACLU.
Someone from one perspective is not going to convince someone of the other perspective in regard to the ACLU on the basis of gun rights alone.
The religion unofficially endorsed and pushed by the ACLU is called Secular Humanism, basically Man is God. That is why they get so upset when someone would dare question the sacred tenet of their faith, Darwinian Evolution. They want to see Christianity confined to a nice little church building only, just like the Soviets.
I know; that last statement will get me flamed by those who just saw red by reading it; so be it. I just wanted to illustrate that those of us with a more conservative moral perspective will never support the ACLU, even though they occasionally do a few good things, and even if they started supporting gun rights.
If you are liberal on those issues- you will likely love the ACLU.
Someone from one perspective is not going to convince someone of the other perspective in regard to the ACLU on the basis of gun rights alone.
The religion unofficially endorsed and pushed by the ACLU is called Secular Humanism, basically Man is God. That is why they get so upset when someone would dare question the sacred tenet of their faith, Darwinian Evolution. They want to see Christianity confined to a nice little church building only, just like the Soviets.
I know; that last statement will get me flamed by those who just saw red by reading it; so be it. I just wanted to illustrate that those of us with a more conservative moral perspective will never support the ACLU, even though they occasionally do a few good things, and even if they started supporting gun rights.
Quoting ACLU:
That's a lousy analogy the ACLU has made, and lousy reasoning. If that's typical of their cognitive abilities, I'm not impressed.
Well, then, if we can license and register cars, we can license and register speech. Oh no, they'd quickly respond: speech is protected by the first amendment. And the RKBA is protected by the second! Oh, and which amendment guarantees the right to own and drive cars, btw?
That's a lousy analogy the ACLU has made, and lousy reasoning. If that's typical of their cognitive abilities, I'm not impressed.
The problem of the ACLU and others is that they want the Bill of Rights to be subject to "pick and choose." This right is good, that one is bad. They still accept the "collective right" theory to support that view, and since they take each amendment separately, they can do that.
But in context, that doesn't work. If the Second Amendment is a collective right available only to the state, then Freedom of the Press must apply only to official publications of the state, and privately owned newspapers and news media can be rigidly controlled and censored.
Likewise, Freedom of Religion would apply only to an official state religion; the ban on an official religion could be said to apply only to the federal government, so Massachusetts could declare Catholicism as its religion and ban all others. Alabama could decide Baptists are free to worship, but imprison Methodists. Why not, if the "collective/state right" idea is good for one Right, it should be good for all.
Why not forget all the voting nonsense? We could just watch on TV as the state governor casts a ballot exercising our "collective" right.
And so on. The "collective right" idea is simply absurd, even though the ACLU and others have never been able to see the inherent contradictions.
Jim
But in context, that doesn't work. If the Second Amendment is a collective right available only to the state, then Freedom of the Press must apply only to official publications of the state, and privately owned newspapers and news media can be rigidly controlled and censored.
Likewise, Freedom of Religion would apply only to an official state religion; the ban on an official religion could be said to apply only to the federal government, so Massachusetts could declare Catholicism as its religion and ban all others. Alabama could decide Baptists are free to worship, but imprison Methodists. Why not, if the "collective/state right" idea is good for one Right, it should be good for all.
Why not forget all the voting nonsense? We could just watch on TV as the state governor casts a ballot exercising our "collective" right.
And so on. The "collective right" idea is simply absurd, even though the ACLU and others have never been able to see the inherent contradictions.
Jim
ACORN
Member
Very well stated, Mr Keenan.
bogie
Member
Sigh...
If I had a chance to get a paying job with the ACLU, don't you think I'd take it?
And I'll bet you'd LIKE what would happen.
You ain't gonna be able to change SQUAT about any organization if you are coming at it from outside. All you can do, like so many of y'all have BEEN doing, is bitch about it on internet forums, and virtually smack each other on the back and tell y'all how righteous you are. Do you know what this accomplishes?
NOTHING.
Join it. Go to meetings. Change it from within.
If I had a chance to get a paying job with the ACLU, don't you think I'd take it?
And I'll bet you'd LIKE what would happen.
You ain't gonna be able to change SQUAT about any organization if you are coming at it from outside. All you can do, like so many of y'all have BEEN doing, is bitch about it on internet forums, and virtually smack each other on the back and tell y'all how righteous you are. Do you know what this accomplishes?
NOTHING.
Join it. Go to meetings. Change it from within.
River Wraith
Member
You think that is actually possible, bogie?
bogie
Member
I _know_ it is actually possible.
But you know something?
It won't happen overnight. Americans want instant, and gun owners want it faster than that.
Back in the sixties and seventies, one of the theories that people kept tossing around was that you had to take over "the system" from within.
Where do you think so many of our government bureaucrats and teachers came from? They made an effort to join organizations, so they could change them from within.
But you know something?
It won't happen overnight. Americans want instant, and gun owners want it faster than that.
Back in the sixties and seventies, one of the theories that people kept tossing around was that you had to take over "the system" from within.
Where do you think so many of our government bureaucrats and teachers came from? They made an effort to join organizations, so they could change them from within.
River Wraith
Member
Maybe I'll give it a shot, then. You joined the ACLU?
Cosmoline
Member
The ACLU is run by a bunch of hypocrites. They have preemptively adopted the most restrictive reading of the Second. They have constantly refused to even acknowledge that other interpretations exist, even as several circuits have acknowledged the clause recognizes an individual right. It's as if they decided the First Amendment applied only to antique printing presses.
With these guys, when the RKBA comes up, their brains switch off. My old Con Law professor, who's now an appellate judge in Oregon, was a brilliant man. But his "lecture" on the Second was a fierce and terse denial of any meaning. There was no reasoning, no debate and no analysis. Just a rejection of the entire clause on thinly veiled political grounds. Guns scared the hell out of him, so that part of the Constitution could have no meaning. He also took the opportunity to urge us not to vote for Pete Defazio because he wasn't exactly PC when it came to gun control. He's typical of the folks who run the ACLU. They have an enormous blind spot when it comes to the RKBA, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. The ACLU is in many respects a religious institution, and trying to change core doctrine in any religious institution is exceptionally difficult.
With these guys, when the RKBA comes up, their brains switch off. My old Con Law professor, who's now an appellate judge in Oregon, was a brilliant man. But his "lecture" on the Second was a fierce and terse denial of any meaning. There was no reasoning, no debate and no analysis. Just a rejection of the entire clause on thinly veiled political grounds. Guns scared the hell out of him, so that part of the Constitution could have no meaning. He also took the opportunity to urge us not to vote for Pete Defazio because he wasn't exactly PC when it came to gun control. He's typical of the folks who run the ACLU. They have an enormous blind spot when it comes to the RKBA, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. The ACLU is in many respects a religious institution, and trying to change core doctrine in any religious institution is exceptionally difficult.
The militia is defined as all males between the ages of 17 and 45. YOU are probably unorganized militia as defined in the US Code. If you throw that term around and play in the woods you've been declared a "tango" by Full Metal Janet and others who you should pay close attention to...
gotarheels03
Member
Yes, it does say militia, but in every historical text ive ever read the militia was composed of "the people" and those texts said that those people were required to have sufficient arms and ammunition. Yes, the individual states aided in their organization when needed, but they were composed of individuals with individual arms. I'm a member of the modern "unorganized militia" but I can't very well serve in it if i'm not armed.
fireflyfather
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2006
- Messages
- 807
Fatelk: Actually, the Soviets wanted the churches done away with altogether. The ACLU just doesn't want them getting either endorsements or money from the government (and tax breaks are the equivalent of money!).
What you've just done is equate zero with negative ten.
RE the ACLU & the second: It's simple. If you want change in an organization like that, become a member and speak up. If you can't agree with anything they stand for, then by all means flame, but don't be a hypocrite about other groups you belong to (NRA or otherwise).
What you've just done is equate zero with negative ten.
RE the ACLU & the second: It's simple. If you want change in an organization like that, become a member and speak up. If you can't agree with anything they stand for, then by all means flame, but don't be a hypocrite about other groups you belong to (NRA or otherwise).
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
bogie:
Right! The only voice people have when they isolate themselves is opinions, lamentations, and complaints.
Decades ago, when I was a teenager, my father signed me up as an envelope stuffer for a presidential campaign before I was old enough to vote in one. He had heard me discuss politics (with all the wisdom of a teenager) and said "If you've going to have opinions you need to learn what you're talking about. Here's where you start your education. Keep your mouth shut, your ears open, and stuff envelopes or anything else they need you to do. This is politics." I must have stuffed 100,000,000 envelopes (that's what it felt like) in that campaign, and I listened. Learned an awful lot even though I never got to meet or see the candidate.
One thing I learned is that anyone who stays on the outside can have all the opinions in the world but in the end they accomplish nothing more than wasted breath.
Economist, take that job.
Right! The only voice people have when they isolate themselves is opinions, lamentations, and complaints.
Decades ago, when I was a teenager, my father signed me up as an envelope stuffer for a presidential campaign before I was old enough to vote in one. He had heard me discuss politics (with all the wisdom of a teenager) and said "If you've going to have opinions you need to learn what you're talking about. Here's where you start your education. Keep your mouth shut, your ears open, and stuff envelopes or anything else they need you to do. This is politics." I must have stuffed 100,000,000 envelopes (that's what it felt like) in that campaign, and I listened. Learned an awful lot even though I never got to meet or see the candidate.
One thing I learned is that anyone who stays on the outside can have all the opinions in the world but in the end they accomplish nothing more than wasted breath.
Economist, take that job.
I see no reason why religion SHOULDN'T be confined to churches and other private organizations as an officially endorsed position. Now if you want to share your opinions and beliefs in a public forum that is fine. At the public university I go to students often cite their religous beliefs as a basis for forming opinions, and I have never seen a professor treat them with disrespect because of it. But public schools etc. shouldn't open with a prayer, the Ten Commandments shouldn't be in courtrooms (for example, not taking the lord's name in vain is not a law),etc.
And this is coming from someone who has just recently enrolled in classes to become a member of the Catholic faith.
And this is coming from someone who has just recently enrolled in classes to become a member of the Catholic faith.
Also I do agree that argueing about the ACLU on this board is pointless, for example my sister is a lesbian, and even before finding this out I felt that homosexuals should have all the same legal rights as anyone else.
Also although I don't own any pornography I feel its not my right to tell another adult they can't own it so long as children are not exposed to it or used in its making.
But those who disagree will argue this, and rarely will people change their viewpoint on issues. It is only when you are uneducated on an issue that you may change your mind (I actually was for a decent amount of gun control such as requiring classes, tests, and evaluation before one is allowed to own one. But after reading both sides and thinking it through I changed my mind and now I am against prohibiting anyone other than violent felons from owning guns (I feel that certain non-violent crimes shouldn't prohibit gun ownership so long as the person has payed their debt to society).
So I would say if you don't like guns don't own one, but don't stop me from owning them. If you aren't a homosexual or don't agree w/it (I admit even though I am for their equal rights I would not want to even see to guys having see to guys having sex, so I don't) participate in those acts. If you are against or don't like pornography don't buy it or watch it. If you don't like drugs don't take them (I don't take anything the doctor doesn't recommend and I have carefully resarched myself other than coffee and cigarettes) but so long as the user committs no crime like DUI or any other criminal act I don't think its anyone else's business so long as they are an adult. Basically so long as you do not hurt someone else physically or financially (other than when their is good reason such as self defense or competing businesses) you should have the right to do what you want.
So even though I may disagree with things I don't force my beliefs on others, I will debate (I love to have respectful debates with those that hold opinions different than mine), but other than that people should decide what they feel is right so long as they don't hurt others.
Also although I don't own any pornography I feel its not my right to tell another adult they can't own it so long as children are not exposed to it or used in its making.
But those who disagree will argue this, and rarely will people change their viewpoint on issues. It is only when you are uneducated on an issue that you may change your mind (I actually was for a decent amount of gun control such as requiring classes, tests, and evaluation before one is allowed to own one. But after reading both sides and thinking it through I changed my mind and now I am against prohibiting anyone other than violent felons from owning guns (I feel that certain non-violent crimes shouldn't prohibit gun ownership so long as the person has payed their debt to society).
So I would say if you don't like guns don't own one, but don't stop me from owning them. If you aren't a homosexual or don't agree w/it (I admit even though I am for their equal rights I would not want to even see to guys having see to guys having sex, so I don't) participate in those acts. If you are against or don't like pornography don't buy it or watch it. If you don't like drugs don't take them (I don't take anything the doctor doesn't recommend and I have carefully resarched myself other than coffee and cigarettes) but so long as the user committs no crime like DUI or any other criminal act I don't think its anyone else's business so long as they are an adult. Basically so long as you do not hurt someone else physically or financially (other than when their is good reason such as self defense or competing businesses) you should have the right to do what you want.
So even though I may disagree with things I don't force my beliefs on others, I will debate (I love to have respectful debates with those that hold opinions different than mine), but other than that people should decide what they feel is right so long as they don't hurt others.
max popenker
Member
Chui, you insult Soviets
I was taught to use AK-47 when i was 14, and it was in Soviet school
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
