Barr, Armey to join ACLU

[Fausto]

This ought to be interesting........anyone call Hell to see how the skiing is these days?

Linky.

 

[gopunk]

everybody always gets surprised by the aclu... i dunno why. their mission is one of the simplest and most consistent of just about any special interest group out there... perhaps the lack of hypocrisy throws people off...

 

[Amused]

The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

 

[mithrandir2001]

I think it's alarming if a pol doesn't belong to the ACLU.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

Yea just because the Supreme Court says it does not protect a PERSONS right to a gun, what do they know.

Scarasm off

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

it would be hypocrisy if they were against it. as it were, i don't see "gun control" on their little list of topics on their website.

besides, not everybody reads the second amendment the same way... i wouldn't be surprised if they just couldn't agree on the meaning of it so they just left it out.

 

[Vette73]

It also defends civil liberties and the right to privacy, which is where its interests intersect with those of Armey and Barr


That is from the passage

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

Here is the ACLU's bull policy on Second amendment, however since they don't activly work against your right to bear and support every other consitutional right I think membership is a no-brainer to protect the const.


They obviously have never read this forum to come to thier conclusion. Or perhaps they would aleinate to many libs I donno.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

Yea just because the Supreme Court says it does not protect a PERSONS right to a gun, what do they know.

Scarasm off

Um, what US Supreme Court court case stated this in it's decision?

 

[gopunk]

why's it bull?

i don't necessarily agree with it, but i think they give a good argument...

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

Yea just because the Supreme Court says it does not protect a PERSONS right to a gun, what do they know.

Scarasm off

Um, what US Supreme Court court case stated this in it's decision?

The last gun control case in front of the supreme court, IIRC, had to do with the transportation of sawed-off shotguns during prohibition.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

Yea just because the Supreme Court says it does not protect a PERSONS right to a gun, what do they know.

Scarasm off

Um, what US Supreme Court court case stated this in it's decision?

The last gun control case in front of the supreme court, IIRC, had to do with the transportation of sawed-off shotguns during prohibition.

Yep, U.S. v. Miller, 1939. The Court only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

"In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

And

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

[/quote]

The case was remanded BACK to the original court for Miller to provide evidence his shotgun with a barrel of less than 10 inches had a valid purpose as a miltia type weapon.

In other words, we have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. No reasonable person can read the Amendment, and the writtings of those who wrote it and passed it, and come to any other conclusion.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

it would be hypocrisy if they were against it. as it were, i don't see "gun control" on their little list of topics on their website.

besides, not everybody reads the second amendment the same way... i wouldn't be surprised if they just couldn't agree on the meaning of it so they just left it out.

Their silence, and standing opinion on it are hypocrisy enough. They fight for every other right, and even create penumbras of rights surrounding Amendments, yet completely ignore the Second Amendment.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: gopunk
why's it bull?

i don't necessarily agree with it, but i think they give a good argument...

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

I already shattered this misinterpretation of US v Miller.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "collective right" in the Bill of Rights. Every usage of the phrase "The People" means individual citizens separate and appart from "the state."

This is made more than clear in the wording of the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people [thereof.]"

You can see that they do nat regard "the people" to be anything other than individual citizens living in "the state."

Therefore,

"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."

can only mean that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

Moreover, every writing from the period describes only an individual right to keep and bear arms. Not a single opinion of the day discusses anything lclose to a "collective" right.

Madison summed it up more than clearly in Federalist 49:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

The ACLU is wrong on this. More than that, they KNOW they're wrong on this, and are intentionally anti-Second Amendment. Since they do not fight against any rights, they obviously can not be pro-active in their crusade against the right to keep and bear arms. Their silence and stance is action enough.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This ought to be interesting........anyone call Hell to see how the skiing is these days?

Linky.

That's what I'm thinking after reading the topic title.


Edit: This 2nd ammendment argument is fvcking stupid. Leave it to Amused to bring in this bullsh!t. Everybody shut-up about it for 5 seconds (and instead look up one of the many other already-beaten dead horses out there). Time for everybody that typed the number 2 or the word second to re-read the article and see where they mentioned Armey's support of the ACLU's alleged anti-gun stance, and failing that, speak instead about the right to privacy, and
civil liberties that Dick supports.

Amused: the only reason you're not goose-stepping and heiling the omnipotent dictator of the USA is the constitution and the ACLU, keeping things sane after 9/11 (though most of us are sure you'd be happier in said fascist america).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This ought to be interesting........anyone call Hell to see how the skiing is these days?

Linky.

That's what I'm thinking after reading the topic title.


Edit: This 2nd ammendment argument is fvcking stupid. Leave it to Amused to bring in this bullsh!t. Everybody shut-up about it for 5 seconds (and instead look up one of the many other already-beaten dead horses out there). Time for everybody that typed the number 2 or the word second to re-read the article and see where they mentioned Armey's support of the ACLU's alleged anti-gun stance, and failing that, speak instead about the right to privacy, and
civil liberties that Dick supports.

Amused: the only reason you're not goose-stepping and heiling the omnipotent dictator of the USA is the constitution and the ACLU, keeping things sane after 9/11 (though most of us are sure you'd be happier in said fascist america).

That you would even say this only shows how fscking stupid you really are. You obviously know nothing about my political opinions, or you wouldn't have even written such bullsh!t.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This ought to be interesting........anyone call Hell to see how the skiing is these days?

Linky.

That's what I'm thinking after reading the topic title.


Edit: This 2nd ammendment argument is fvcking stupid. Leave it to Amused to bring in this bullsh!t. Everybody shut-up about it for 5 seconds (and instead look up one of the many other already-beaten dead horses out there). Time for everybody that typed the number 2 or the word second to re-read the article and see where they mentioned Armey's support of the ACLU's alleged anti-gun stance, and failing that, speak instead about the right to privacy, and
civil liberties that Dick supports.

Amused: the only reason you're not goose-stepping and heiling the omnipotent dictator of the USA is the constitution and the ACLU, keeping things sane after 9/11 (though most of us are sure you'd be happier in said fascist america).

That you would even say this only shows how fscking stupid you really are. You obviously know nothing about my political opinions, or you wouldn't have even written such bullsh!t.

I've been here long enough to realize how exactly fvcked up your logic is when it comes to politics... You're not as stupid a davesomer, or texmaster was but you're close.


Except...I was referring to the fact that the 2nd reply in this topic was you ranting about the hypocracy of the ACLU because of the 2nd ammendment. You started this, I stand by my allegations.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This ought to be interesting........anyone call Hell to see how the skiing is these days?

Linky.

That's what I'm thinking after reading the topic title.


Edit: This 2nd ammendment argument is fvcking stupid. Leave it to Amused to bring in this bullsh!t. Everybody shut-up about it for 5 seconds (and instead look up one of the many other already-beaten dead horses out there). Time for everybody that typed the number 2 or the word second to re-read the article and see where they mentioned Armey's support of the ACLU's alleged anti-gun stance, and failing that, speak instead about the right to privacy, and
civil liberties that Dick supports.

Amused: the only reason you're not goose-stepping and heiling the omnipotent dictator of the USA is the constitution and the ACLU, keeping things sane after 9/11 (though most of us are sure you'd be happier in said fascist america).

That you would even say this only shows how fscking stupid you really are. You obviously know nothing about my political opinions, or you wouldn't have even written such bullsh!t.

I've been here long enough to realize how exactly fvcked up your logic is when it comes to politics... You're not as stupid a davesomer, or texmaster was but you're close.


Except...I was referring to the fact that the 2nd reply in this topic was you ranting about the hypocracy of the ACLU because of the 2nd ammendment. You started this, I stand by my allegations.

You have accused me of being, or supporting fascism. You have also accused me of not supporting the actions of the ACLU and their fights for our Constitutional rights (I only faulted them for their silence and stance on the 2nd Amendment, nothing else).

You have, at your disposal, 2 years of my political opinions and arguments on this board and the archive. Either produce a single post showing ANY of the things you have accused me of, or apologize.

If you do neither, well... that would just show everyone what kind of person you really are, now wouldn't it?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: gopunk
why's it bull?

i don't necessarily agree with it, but i think they give a good argument...

They have three stances 1) it's a collective right, 2) if we allow them it's a slippery slope into nukes 3) must regsister and licence ...Amused adressed the first here are the other two

If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns
No guns are gauranteed by the consititution cars, buggies, bicyles, horses etc are not so this is a strawman. It's like saying you have to register yourself and be taxed in order to practice buddism.

Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms

Back then arms meant pistols and muskets or small arms as we say today that's it. They had a separate word called ordinance for the heavy stuff like cannons etc which even then were illegal to own again another lame argument/

You'd think these harvard and yale edcucated lawyers were smater than that no?...When all it would take them is a dictionary from that time, a review of the founders writings, and re-read the tenth amendment to easily support your right to bear...
ACLU's position is purely a political one to maintian thier liberal membership and I can understand that, but they should'nt lie about it they sound DUMB in doing so.


And I'm still a member, because to me the bill of rights is unique to this country and worth preserving, but this does piss me off to no end that I'm forced to join such a right wing org such as the NRA to support mine and your Second Amendment rights..

 

[reitz]

I've been here long enough to realize how exactly fvcked up your logic is when it comes to politics... You're not as stupid a davesomer, or texmaster was but you're close.

WTF? I know Amused doesn't need me to defend him, but I have to chime in here. He and I may not always agree on issues, but Amused has to be the most consistent and logically sound right-leaning Libertarian I've come across. I think you're the one with the fscked up logic...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: reitz

I've been here long enough to realize how exactly fvcked up your logic is when it comes to politics... You're not as stupid a davesomer, or texmaster was but you're close.

WTF? I know Amused doesn't need me to defend him, but I have to chime in here. He and I may not always agree on issues, but Amused has to be the most consistent and logically sound right-leaning Libertarian I've come across. I think you're the one with the fscked up logic...

Owned and agreed

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: reitz

I've been here long enough to realize how exactly fvcked up your logic is when it comes to politics... You're not as stupid a davesomer, or texmaster was but you're close.

WTF? I know Amused doesn't need me to defend him, but I have to chime in here. He and I may not always agree on issues, but Amused has to be the most consistent and logically sound right-leaning Libertarian I've come across. I think you're the one with the fscked up logic...

:Q

Thank you, Reitz

You too, Carbonyl

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

That said, would you or do you support the ACLU??

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

That said, would you or do you support the ACLU??

I would, and I do.

As I said, the only way to change THIS issue is from within. As more libertarian minded Republicans and pro-Second Amendment Democrats fill the ranks of the ACLU, they stand a chance of changing this position.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Amused
The only way to change the ACLU's misguided stand on the Second Amendment is from within.

THAT, gopunk, is the ACLU's glaring hypocrisy. They defend every other right, but that one. Not to mention they perpetuate the "National Guard is the militia" fallacy.

it would be hypocrisy if they were against it. as it were, i don't see "gun control" on their little list of topics on their website.

besides, not everybody reads the second amendment the same way... i wouldn't be surprised if they just couldn't agree on the meaning of it so they just left it out.

Their silence, and standing opinion on it are hypocrisy enough. They fight for every other right, and even create penumbras of rights surrounding Amendments, yet completely ignore the Second Amendment.

They fight for rights that are threatened. Who is taking away your right to bear arms? You read their site. They are neutral, and the reasons they give make sense.