Congressional Research Service says Bush broke yet another law

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I think this was missed in the bickering, but it's a great question. Who can file charges in a case like this, especially when the Justice Department may be complicit in the violation? Who can prosecute it? Who prosecutes the prosecutors? Are there other options besides Bush or the Republican-controlled Congress appointing someone? Are civil suits the only tool available?

I think Civil Suits would be, but there's a big problem. How do you file a suit when you have no evidence that you were targetted by the NSA? No evidence that your conversations were listened to, et al. You can't just throw out a net.

That's why the ACLU lawsuits are so pathetic. It'd be one thing to make a claim with evidence that you were targetted and proof to show how you were damaged by it...

The ACLU "can't just throw a net" -- but that's exactly what Bush did with his illegal wiretapping of innocent Americans. And Bush's net trapped only innocent Americans as verified by the FBI's own statements in the OP of this thread.

Is the word "hypocrsiy" even in your vocabulary?

Here, now you can't use ignorance as an excuse. Well, at least not any longer regarding hypocrisy.

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, that is the whole point I do not believe he did break the law while you may, I don't. That is right either he broke it or he didn't regardless of believe, and the verdict isn't out on that thus far. Plain and simple enough for you now?

Naw, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" when you're a liberal.

That is, unless you are a card-carrying member of the American Criminals Liberties Union.

Ummmm, WTF? Why are you calling the ACLU "criminals?!" Is that your ignorance talking again? Or are you simply after the world's largest hypocrite award for a single post in the moronic right-wing category? Ironic that you would bitch about "innocent until proven guilty" when it involves the administration and in nearly the same breath call this country's best civil liberties organization "criminals."

:roll:

Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, that is the whole point I do not believe he did break the law while you may, I don't. That is right either he broke it or he didn't regardless of believe, and the verdict isn't out on that thus far. Plain and simple enough for you now?

Naw, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" when you're a liberal.

That is, unless you are a card-carrying member of the American Criminals Liberties Union.

Ummmm, WTF? Why are you calling the ACLU "criminals?!" Is that your ignorance talking again? Or are you simply after the world's largest hypocrite award for a single post in the moronic right-wing category? Ironic that you would bitch about "innocent until proven guilty" when it involves the administration and in nearly the same breath call this country's best civil liberties organization "criminals."

:roll:

Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Probably because they don't want to associate themselves with nutjobs from the NRA. 🙂

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

When was the last time they were asked?

There's plenty of talk, but to the best of my knowledge, the right to bear arms is not under attack (note the not-so-subtle difference, being that you have a protected right to bear arms, not to 'own guns').

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
that doesnt make it legal

And it doesn't make it illegal, either.

Until the Supreme Court hears the issue, we'll have endless debate about it.

I was simply providing some historical context for the debate.

Here's some more "historical context" for the debate...

40 YEARS AGO WIRETAPPING INNOCENT AMERICANS WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER

And it still is.

That's why the law that Bush is breaking was created in the first place.

Heh, nice flyer...but even though the people who have a very strange hatred of the ACLU will dismiss it because of the source, it makes a good point.

A better, and less "biased" historical context could be found by simply Googling "Project Shamrock". But I'll save you the trouble. It was a project started in the 1950s, listening in on telegrams sent between the US and other countries without a warrent. It too was run by the NSA, and it too was done to combat terrorism. The only difference is that the fear back then was comminist agents in the US, instead of fanatical Muslim agents.

Senator Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat, chaired the now famous "Church Committee" investigating this project and many others like it from the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. He concluded that allowing warrentless domestic spying was a mistake that would leave Americans with no privacy left. The end result was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, otherwise known as FISA, which requires a warrent from a secret court in order to spy on ANY communications involving a US person.

In other words, Pabster et all are wrong. This isn't some crazy issue that has never come up before, where we can't possibly know whether or not it was legal. This is EXACTLY the kind of program FISA was established to regulate. This isn't some strange aspect of FISA that has never been dealt with before, it was created in response to, among other things, a program that use warrentless wiretapping on communications between US persons and foreigners. Of course the official decision has to come from the courts, but this is like seeing someone run out of a bank wearing a mask and carrying bags of money, shoot at the bank guards, and jump into a car and squeal away. Sure, it's up to the courts to make it official, but it's pretty clear some laws were broken.

Of course none of this means the program will be declared illegal. You never quite know what's going to happen with these things, especially when the majority in both houses of congress is held by a particularly gutless bunch of Republicans who probably wouldn't stand up to the President no matter what he did. We'll see, of course, but we all know what happened...even Pabster.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, that is the whole point I do not believe he did break the law while you may, I don't. That is right either he broke it or he didn't regardless of believe, and the verdict isn't out on that thus far. Plain and simple enough for you now?

Naw, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" when you're a liberal.

That is, unless you are a card-carrying member of the American Criminals Liberties Union.

Ummmm, WTF? Why are you calling the ACLU "criminals?!" Is that your ignorance talking again? Or are you simply after the world's largest hypocrite award for a single post in the moronic right-wing category? Ironic that you would bitch about "innocent until proven guilty" when it involves the administration and in nearly the same breath call this country's best civil liberties organization "criminals."

:roll:

Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

It IS interesting, and I find it to be the one thing I don't like abou the ACLU. Defending rights means defending rights, even (or perhaps especially) if you don't agree with them. However, I hardly think this means the rest of what they do is stupid. Nobody is perfect, and while I wish they would defend the 2nd Amendment with the same vigor they defend the rest of them, I'm glad they do what they do at all.

And you know what else is interesting? The people who ONLY defend the right to own guns. Not just because it seems to be the only civil liberty they care about, but because a lot of their logic behind the 2nd Amendment is that it ensures the rest of our rights. You know, if they ever take away our right to free speech, we'll just use our guns to MAKE them respect that right and what not? Good idea, but I think that means actually standing up for your rights sometimes. If you don't have any balls, what good are the guns?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Heh, nice flyer...but even though the people who have a very strange hatred of the ACLU will dismiss it because of the source, it makes a good point.

A better, and less "biased" historical context could be found by simply Googling "Project Shamrock". But I'll save you the trouble. It was a project started in the 1950s, listening in on telegrams sent between the US and other countries without a warrent. It too was run by the NSA, and it too was done to combat terrorism. The only difference is that the fear back then was comminist agents in the US, instead of fanatical Muslim agents.

Senator Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat, chaired the now famous "Church Committee" investigating this project and many others like it from the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. He concluded that allowing warrentless domestic spying was a mistake that would leave Americans with no privacy left. The end result was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, otherwise known as FISA, which requires a warrent from a secret court in order to spy on ANY communications involving a US person.

In other words, Pabster et all are wrong. This isn't some crazy issue that has never come up before, where we can't possibly know whether or not it was legal. This is EXACTLY the kind of program FISA was established to regulate. This isn't some strange aspect of FISA that has never been dealt with before, it was created in response to, among other things, a program that use warrentless wiretapping on communications between US persons and foreigners. Of course the official decision has to come from the courts, but this is like seeing someone run out of a bank wearing a mask and carrying bags of money, shoot at the bank guards, and jump into a car and squeal away. Sure, it's up to the courts to make it official, but it's pretty clear some laws were broken.

Of course none of this means the program will be declared illegal. You never quite know what's going to happen with these things, especially when the majority in both houses of congress is held by a particularly gutless bunch of Republicans who probably wouldn't stand up to the President no matter what he did. We'll see, of course, but we all know what happened...even Pabster.

Yours is indeed an excellent frame of reference and it illustrates the fact that there is NO excuse for illegal wiretapping especially now when there are FISA courts ready and willing on a moment's notice to sign warrants to keep the wiretapping "legal".

That is, if you agree with the notion of "secret courts" in a democracy. But I suppose that small tip of the hat to the Constitution is better than a president who deems himself above any and all laws and the Bill of Rights.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Why do they need to? Seems like the NRA and similar interests aggressively fight that battle. The ACLU has finite resources. They only needs to get involved when no one else is willing to, e.g., defending most of the rest of the Constitution.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Heh, nice flyer...but even though the people who have a very strange hatred of the ACLU will dismiss it because of the source, it makes a good point.

A better, and less "biased" historical context could be found by simply Googling "Project Shamrock". But I'll save you the trouble. It was a project started in the 1950s, listening in on telegrams sent between the US and other countries without a warrent. It too was run by the NSA, and it too was done to combat terrorism. The only difference is that the fear back then was comminist agents in the US, instead of fanatical Muslim agents.

Senator Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat, chaired the now famous "Church Committee" investigating this project and many others like it from the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. He concluded that allowing warrentless domestic spying was a mistake that would leave Americans with no privacy left. The end result was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, otherwise known as FISA, which requires a warrent from a secret court in order to spy on ANY communications involving a US person.

In other words, Pabster et all are wrong. This isn't some crazy issue that has never come up before, where we can't possibly know whether or not it was legal. This is EXACTLY the kind of program FISA was established to regulate. This isn't some strange aspect of FISA that has never been dealt with before, it was created in response to, among other things, a program that use warrentless wiretapping on communications between US persons and foreigners. Of course the official decision has to come from the courts, but this is like seeing someone run out of a bank wearing a mask and carrying bags of money, shoot at the bank guards, and jump into a car and squeal away. Sure, it's up to the courts to make it official, but it's pretty clear some laws were broken.

Of course none of this means the program will be declared illegal. You never quite know what's going to happen with these things, especially when the majority in both houses of congress is held by a particularly gutless bunch of Republicans who probably wouldn't stand up to the President no matter what he did. We'll see, of course, but we all know what happened...even Pabster.

Yours is indeed an excellent frame of reference and it illustrates the fact that there is NO excuse for illegal wiretapping especially now when there are FISA courts ready and willing on a moment's notice to sign warrants to keep the wiretapping "legal".

That is, if you agree with the notion of "secret courts" in a democracy. But I suppose that small tip of the hat to the Constitution is better than a president who deems himself above any and all laws and the Bill of Rights.

Indeed. I'm not a big fan of the concept of secret courts. However, I do understand that the intelligence business sometimes requires secrecy in order to properly function. And while a totally transparent intelligence process would be an even better protection of our rights, it would cripple the intelligence agencies. A secret court is better protection of our rights than nothing at all, in this case a tradeoff truly does exist, and it makes sense for us. We give up a little bit of privacy protection in exchange for allowing the intelligence agencies to do their jobs.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Why do they need to? Seems like the NRA and similar interests aggressively fight that battle. The ACLU has finite resources. They only needs to get involved when no one else is willing to, e.g., defending most of the rest of the Constitution.

One would think that securing 2nd amendment rights which have been around since the dawn of our country would be more important than vigorously fighting for a right to an abortion which has existed for 30 years, don'tcha think?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


Indeed. I'm not a big fan of the concept of secret courts. However, I do understand that the intelligence business sometimes requires secrecy in order to properly function. And while a totally transparent intelligence process would be an even better protection of our rights, it would cripple the intelligence agencies. A secret court is better protection of our rights than nothing at all, in this case a tradeoff truly does exist, and it makes sense for us. We give up a little bit of privacy protection in exchange for allowing the intelligence agencies to do their jobs.

I agree the intelligence agencies need a modicum of secrecy to do their jobs but just look at the amount of abuse we expose ourselves to when we have criminals like Bush and his gang in positions where they can take illegal advantage of the system.

Unless congress decides that the nation is more important than their political party or unless the American people finally WTFU and return some balance to the system by giving control of congress to the opposition party we are in for more of the same -- and at some point the nation will no longer exist as we know it if the abuse of power and grab for absolute executive power isn't stopped.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, that is the whole point I do not believe he did break the law while you may, I don't. That is right either he broke it or he didn't regardless of believe, and the verdict isn't out on that thus far. Plain and simple enough for you now?

Naw, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" when you're a liberal.

That is, unless you are a card-carrying member of the American Criminals Liberties Union.

Ummmm, WTF? Why are you calling the ACLU "criminals?!" Is that your ignorance talking again? Or are you simply after the world's largest hypocrite award for a single post in the moronic right-wing category? Ironic that you would bitch about "innocent until proven guilty" when it involves the administration and in nearly the same breath call this country's best civil liberties organization "criminals."

:roll:

Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

March 30, 2005


Pack your pistola and hit the road

For TX District and County Attorneys Who Got An ACLU Open Records Request

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Why do they need to? Seems like the NRA and similar interests aggressively fight that battle. The ACLU has finite resources. They only needs to get involved when no one else is willing to, e.g., defending most of the rest of the Constitution.

One would think that securing 2nd amendment rights which have been around since the dawn of our country would be more important than vigorously fighting for a right to an abortion which has existed for 30 years, don'tcha think?

Two completely different topics. One has no bearing on the other.

Have you ever read 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.

Why do the gun nuts choose to ignore the first half of the amendment?

Does America still need a well regualted militia to secure our free state? And if so, isn't that the National Guard? (Well, at least before Bush turned the NG into a front line fighting unit in his unnecessary, unprovoked attack against Iraq.)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Why do they need to? Seems like the NRA and similar interests aggressively fight that battle. The ACLU has finite resources. They only needs to get involved when no one else is willing to, e.g., defending most of the rest of the Constitution.

One would think that securing 2nd amendment rights which have been around since the dawn of our country would be more important than vigorously fighting for a right to an abortion which has existed for 30 years, don'tcha think?

Lest we forget the ACLU's defense of the 1st and 4th Amendments that have also been around since the dawn of our country...hmm?

You know what, it doesn't matter. It's not about the issues, people that dislike the ACLU are against it on principle. Look at the current case, it seems clear that people care more about the promise of safety than they do about their rights. The fact that the ACLU is taking flack for defending YOUR privacy tells us all we need to know about the priorities in this country.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Why do they need to? Seems like the NRA and similar interests aggressively fight that battle. The ACLU has finite resources. They only needs to get involved when no one else is willing to, e.g., defending most of the rest of the Constitution.

One would think that securing 2nd amendment rights which have been around since the dawn of our country would be more important than vigorously fighting for a right to an abortion which has existed for 30 years, don'tcha think?

Not really - one of those rights is heavily and constantly under attack, the other is actually rather secure.

And as noted, not only does the ACLU support 2nd ammendment rights when needed, but alegitimate case can be made that other, more narrow special interest groups work very hard on that particular amendment, while the ACLU supports the entire constitution.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Why do they need to? Seems like the NRA and similar interests aggressively fight that battle. The ACLU has finite resources. They only needs to get involved when no one else is willing to, e.g., defending most of the rest of the Constitution.

One would think that securing 2nd amendment rights which have been around since the dawn of our country would be more important than vigorously fighting for a right to an abortion which has existed for 30 years, don'tcha think?

Not really - one of those rights is heavily and constantly under attack, the other is actually rather secure.

And as noted, not only does the ACLU support 2nd ammendment rights when needed, but alegitimate case can be made that other, more narrow special interest groups work very hard on that particular amendment, while the ACLU supports the entire constitution.

The 2nd amendment isn't under attack anymore. The gun control nuts have already won.

It's more difficult for a law abiding adult citizen to purchase a gun than for a 12 year old to hop on an abortion table. Not under attack, eh?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Why do they need to? Seems like the NRA and similar interests aggressively fight that battle. The ACLU has finite resources. They only needs to get involved when no one else is willing to, e.g., defending most of the rest of the Constitution.

One would think that securing 2nd amendment rights which have been around since the dawn of our country would be more important than vigorously fighting for a right to an abortion which has existed for 30 years, don'tcha think?

Lest we forget the ACLU's defense of the 1st and 4th Amendments that have also been around since the dawn of our country...hmm?

You know what, it doesn't matter. It's not about the issues, people that dislike the ACLU are against it on principle. Look at the current case, it seems clear that people care more about the promise of safety than they do about their rights. The fact that the ACLU is taking flack for defending YOUR privacy tells us all we need to know about the priorities in this country.

Leftwingers never give the NRA respect for standing up for THEIR rights.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Why do they need to? Seems like the NRA and similar interests aggressively fight that battle. The ACLU has finite resources. They only needs to get involved when no one else is willing to, e.g., defending most of the rest of the Constitution.

One would think that securing 2nd amendment rights which have been around since the dawn of our country would be more important than vigorously fighting for a right to an abortion which has existed for 30 years, don'tcha think?

Lest we forget the ACLU's defense of the 1st and 4th Amendments that have also been around since the dawn of our country...hmm?

You know what, it doesn't matter. It's not about the issues, people that dislike the ACLU are against it on principle. Look at the current case, it seems clear that people care more about the promise of safety than they do about their rights. The fact that the ACLU is taking flack for defending YOUR privacy tells us all we need to know about the priorities in this country.

Leftwingers never give the NRA respect for standing up for THEIR rights.

You are comparing the aclu with the NRA? You are a joke. Good job ignoring all the main points in this thread to argue with something minor.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford
lest we forget the ACLU's defense of the 1st and 4th Amendments that have also been around since the dawn of our country...hmm?

You know what, it doesn't matter. It's not about the issues, people that dislike the ACLU are against it on principle. Look at the current case, it seems clear that people care more about the promise of safety than they do about their rights. The fact that the ACLU is taking flack for defending YOUR privacy tells us all we need to know about the priorities in this country.

Leftwingers never give the NRA respect for standing up for THEIR rights.

You are comparing the aclu with the NRA? You are a joke. Good job ignoring all the main points in this thread to argue with something minor.

Oh I forgot you don't believe in the 2nd amendment. So much for liberals being the champions of freedom they claim to be.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: zendari
Leftwingers never give the NRA respect for standing up for THEIR rights.

March 30, 2005

"In any case, though, I'm pleased that the ACLU of Texas is taking a pro-right-to-self-defense view; Scott Henson, director of the police accountability project for the ACLU of Texas, testified this Spring -- on the ACLU of Texas's behalf -- in favor of a proposal to let law-abiding citizens carry guns in their cars. The law ultimately passed, and Mr. Henson is now trying to check how well it's being implemented, by filing state open records act requests for any instructions that government agencies are giving police officers about the new law. Sounds like good work to me."


Pack your pistola and hit the road

For TX District and County Attorneys Who Got An ACLU Open Records Request

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9


You are comparing the aclu with the NRA? You are a joke. Good job ignoring all the main points in this thread to argue with something minor.

Well, the thread is on Bush's illegal and indefensible warrantless spying on American citizens so Zendari will of course do all he can to change the subject rather than be forced to admit Bush's criminal abuse of our rights.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari

You are comparing the aclu with the NRA? You are a joke. Good job ignoring all the main points in this thread to argue with something minor.

Oh I forgot you don't believe in the 2nd amendment. So much for liberals being the champions of freedom they claim to be.
[/quote]
Hey, Zendari, if you want to discuss the Second Amendment start your own thread. This thread is titled "Congressional Research Service says Bush broke yet another law" -- stick to the topic or please STFU.

🙂

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: zendari
Interestingly enough the ACLU never makes a big stink about to liberty to own guns.

Why do they need to? Seems like the NRA and similar interests aggressively fight that battle. The ACLU has finite resources. They only needs to get involved when no one else is willing to, e.g., defending most of the rest of the Constitution.

One would think that securing 2nd amendment rights which have been around since the dawn of our country would be more important than vigorously fighting for a right to an abortion which has existed for 30 years, don'tcha think?

Not really - one of those rights is heavily and constantly under attack, the other is actually rather secure.

And as noted, not only does the ACLU support 2nd ammendment rights when needed, but alegitimate case can be made that other, more narrow special interest groups work very hard on that particular amendment, while the ACLU supports the entire constitution.

The 2nd amendment isn't under attack anymore. The gun control nuts have already won.

It's more difficult for a law abiding adult citizen to purchase a gun than for a 12 year old to hop on an abortion table. Not under attack, eh?

Are you allowed to own a gun or not?

The statistial uselessness of guns for protection being well established, and having noticed that my penis is exactly the same size whether I am holding a gun or not, I have no interest in owning on.

I do however prefer to err on the side of liberty, and while I'm not sure that you should be able to walk into a store with no ID, or anything else, and anonymously purchasea gun and ammunition, the right to own and carry arms in your country is protected, and should be respeted. And guess what? It is.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
The 2nd amendment isn't under attack anymore. The gun control nuts have already won.

It's more difficult for a law abiding adult citizen to purchase a gun than for a 12 year old to hop on an abortion table. Not under attack, eh?

Are you allowed to own a gun or not?

The statistial uselessness of guns for protection being well established, and having noticed that my penis is exactly the same size whether I am holding a gun or not, I have no interest in owning on.

I do however prefer to err on the side of liberty, and while I'm not sure that you should be able to walk into a store with no ID, or anything else, and anonymously purchasea gun and ammunition, the right to own and carry arms in your country is protected, and should be respeted. And guess what? It is.

Not in San Francisco.

Text


The same ACLU which rushed to aid the abortion industry over the Nebraska PBA ban (which, as liberals say, accounts for some 5% or less of abortions and thus shouldnt be a huge deal), is mysteriously silent over a 100% handgun ban.

You dont consider this an attack on gun ownership?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
The 2nd amendment isn't under attack anymore. The gun control nuts have already won.

It's more difficult for a law abiding adult citizen to purchase a gun than for a 12 year old to hop on an abortion table. Not under attack, eh?

Are you allowed to own a gun or not?

The statistial uselessness of guns for protection being well established, and having noticed that my penis is exactly the same size whether I am holding a gun or not, I have no interest in owning on.

I do however prefer to err on the side of liberty, and while I'm not sure that you should be able to walk into a store with no ID, or anything else, and anonymously purchasea gun and ammunition, the right to own and carry arms in your country is protected, and should be respeted. And guess what? It is.

Not in San Francisco.

Text


The same ACLU which rushed to aid the abortion industry over the Nebraska PBA ban (which, as liberals say, accounts for some 5% or less of abortions and thus shouldnt be a huge deal), is mysteriously silent over a 100% handgun ban.

You dont consider this an attack on gun ownership?

That will be an interesting case, to be sure. It will probably be struck down, though you will note that it doesn't prevent someone who lives in San Fran owning a handgun that they keep elsewhere, nor does it restrict long guns.

In either case, the NRA is already 'on the scene' so why would the ACLU step in it's not their particular area of expertise.

Your PBA argument is stupid - the 'pro-life' crowd uses PBA to whip supporters into a frenzy over abortions, but the fact is PBA is a late-term procedure, and should be allowed only for medical reasons, when it is the safest way to terminate a pregnancy.