Yes, because the violations of civil rights are carefully planned to be committed equally against both 'sides', and the 'liberal' constituencies - the less powerful, workers, prisoners, minorities, women, political protestors - are going to be 'equally' as likely to be victims of violations as the ultra wealthy like Limbaugh, employers, the state, the police.
Yes, because the violations of civil rights are carefully planned to be committed equally against both 'sides', and the 'liberal' constituencies - the less powerful, workers, prisoners, minorities, women, political protestors - are going to be 'equally' as likely to be victims of violations as the ultra wealthy like Limbaugh, employers, the state, the police.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
I find it amusing that you find my comment funny by taking only a partial comment to try to take it out of context. What I said was perfectly valid. The ACLU doesn't need to take it's time to defend the 2nd amendment because the NRA steps in to defend it in pretty much any instance it can. Why should the ACLU ALSO step in to take a similar position to what the very well funded and influential lobby of the NRA has.
I'm sure that if for some reason the NRA chose not to step in on a civil rights case defending the 2nd amendment, then the ACLU would. I find it extremely sad that conservatives believe the ACLU only defends liberal viewpoints. Or maybe it's just showing that even conservatives are beginning to realize that their viewpoints for the most part are not in line with the Bill of Rights.
nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
lol. Sig material
Oh boy, I'm laughing so hard that I am starting to tear up. Have you ever ready any statements from the ACLU regarding the 2nd amendment? They are pretty frighteningly anti-2nd amendment. To actually think that they would defend it if not for the NRA is really funny.
"Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment
Last edited:
I used to support the ACLU, but it seems like they have drifted away from their primary mission of defending all civil liberties to just being a big supporter of political correctness stupidity. Now, with the exception of a few specific cases, they pretty much carry the torch for litigating liberal causes.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Same here, still have aclu stickers from 10 years ago.
Will not give them a single dollar so long their website has a "no person is illegal" banner on it under the illegal immigrant section. That asinine statement by itself irks me.
<-immigrant
Last edited:
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Not quite, they support the more limited reading of 2nd amendment, not an individual right.
A civil rights organization that takes a limited view on civil rights... cognitive dissonance should be setting in.
Last edited:
Yep, same here. They went from protecting liberties in general to being a legal hammer for leftist causes. No way am I supporting that organization, but that doesn't mean I don't applaud them in the rare instances when they are on the right side of things, like with the patriot act.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
So a decision that held for 70 years isn't valid because what might be the most conservative court in history has decided to overturn long held rulings? I believe when much less set in stone rulings occur by liberal judges people like you won't stop ranting about the "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench". The ACLU is currently on the side of a ruling that held for almost 70 years and hasn't yet come to agree with a ruling that has been in place 2 years. So either this ruling will itself be overturned by a later court, or it will stand and the ACLU will come to accept it.
And it doesn't mean that the ACLU wouldn't defend the 2nd Amendment, it means they wouldn't defend it from the same standpoint you happen to have.
The ACLU is still one of the most respectable and non-partisan organizations in this country. Unless you consider civil rights to be too liberal. Which judging from posts in this forum, most conservatives certainly do.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
If your mandate is to defend and preserve individual liberties, supporting a narrower reading of a constitutional liberty goes against the mandate.
Also I can recycle your argument in support of Plessy v. Ferguson. It is obvious that it was a liberal court that overturned that 60 years of that jurisprudence...
Last edited:
One problem with your 'logic' is your poor use of the phrase 'limited view on civil rights'.
You claim a civil rights advocate can never take a limited view on civil rights.
OK. I suggest that 'the right to free speech' includes acts. So if you want to carry a poster of a picture, not just speak; if you want to do a dance or a play; or if you want to spit in the face of an opponent, that's your 'free speech' about how you feel about them. If you beat them or kill them, that's your 'free speech' of your opinion.
Oh, you say, hold on, you didn't mean EXTREME positions. You didn't mean EXCESSIVE interpretation. Of course it's ok to take the 'limited view on civil rights' then.
The constitution says you get a speedy trial. I suggest not the same day is not 'speedy'. Oh, you say, the 'limited view on civil rights' on that is correct, too.
'No unreasonable searches'. I say that means 'beyond a reasonable doubt', not the 'probable cause' standard. Oh, you say, the limited view on civil rights is ok on that.
Need I go on with 'cruel' punishment, and example after example?
You see, your argument that they're wrong simply for taking 'the limited view on civil rights' is absurd and wrong on its face.
They are for defending civil rights as they believe they do or should exist - not for never accepting any limits on those rights.
So, your attack on them is reduced to nothing.
You need to *actually attack their position on the second amendment with some substance*, not just say 'ha ha, they such for taking the limited view on a right'.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
a) Straw man
b) Your liberties end where others' begin, which renders your whole tirade void.
My argument is the same reason why ACLU is going after the patriot act. That legislation circumvents some of the protections from 4th amendment and they will protect it, regardless of whether the government has a compelling interest to monitor terrorism or not.
Same principle for second amendment, again even though the government might have a compelling interest to regulate firearms. If your mandate is to protect civil rights, you probably shouldn't be taking even narrower view than SCOTUS.
Last edited:
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
Your point is well made. And as I said, it's a less than 2 year old ruling. I'm not even saying that the ruling is necessarily a wrong one, but you notice the ACLU is also not fighting the ruling.
And considering the definition of infringe, preventing someone from owning a handgun doesn't infringe on their right to bear arms so long as they still can own other weapons. Hell, the 2nd amendment doesn't even specifiy firearms and handguns didn't exist when it was written. Infringe means violate, not limit. We don't let anyone who wants to in this country own a nuclear explosive, but no one complains that we're infringing on the 2nd amendment with that. Regardless of the militia wording in the 2nd amendment, the use of the word infringe is broad enough that it could easily be interpreted that gun control and limits are perfectly legal so long as a total violation doesn't occur.
nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
So much ignorance...ugh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun
Handguns were around hundreds of years BEFORE the 2nd amendment was ever written, and were used extensively throughout the Revolutionary War.
Try again
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
I'm not making a judgment on gov't ability to regulate firearms, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy or, better yet, the disconnect of an organization intended to defend and support individual rights taking a narrower reading on civil right than the current supreme court bench.
Government most certainly has compelling interest to regulate firearms, but civil rights defenders should be the ones arguing the flip side of that.
Personally I still think second amendment was referring to this:
You are really bad at logic. I'm not feeling optimistic, but let's try another round to help you.
a) "straw man" is only useful by itself when it's an obvious case - otherwise, as in this one, you should really actually back it up with an argument proving your claim.
This is not a straw man. This is you expressing a general rule as your only argument for something - and having it be pointed out that your general rule is ridiculous.
YOU'RE the one who said it as a general rule, without any exceptions listed - and the one you add now, on 'where others' begin', is easily dealt with as well - as it was.
In fact, you aren't even showing reading comprehension. Where is the example about speedy trial about 'where others' begin'? Where is the search example about 'where others' begin'? Where is the cruel punishment example about 'where others' begin'? Where are any number of examples having nothing to about 'where others' begin' about where others' begin? They're not, and you just ignored them.
Instead of getting the point that your rule is absurd and one you don't agree with outside of the one situation you use it for, you make ridiculous argument for it.
You just ignore the points, and call it a response.
A reminder what you said:
Having examples pointed out that fit your rule exactly, but which show it's absurd, are issues with your rule, not the examples.
Let's add yet another, in the hope quantity helps you. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, a 'more limited interpretation of free speech' the ACLU supports.
As a "narrower reading of a constitutional liberty" than saying it IS allowed as free speech, your rule says the ACLU has to say it's allowed to be a civil rights group.
Look, I'll save some time here by spelling out for you a fix you need to make to your wrongly phrased rule. What you meant to say, is that civil rights groups should not interpret civil rights overly narrowly - which is a subjective standard. As a subjective standard, you need, as I said and you ignored, to make an actual substantive argument that it is too narrow, and not hide behind some absurd and wrong rule that ANY narrower interpretation than any other is always wrong.
b) so, let's take the law against walking down the street nude.
You haven't punched anyone in the nose. By your standard of 'your liberties end where others' begin', it's YOUR liberties that are being violated a lot more by telling you you are required to obtain and wear clothing, than others' liberties are by merely having to 'see you'.
Isn't this whole claim that it's a bigger infringement to have to see someone do what they want, that for them not to get to do what they want, against your position?
It's another 'general rule' from you that you presumably use selectively. We could add sex with your wife on your front lawn, if you like.
As I said before:
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Straw man per definition, although i did stop reading after "spitting opponent int the face"...
You misconstrued my argument into"ACLU should support your right to do anything and everything" (including the colorful "spitting in the face", "beating them or killing them" etc.) and then attacked that as as a fallacy that it is. That, my friend, is a straw man argument and why I stopped reading after that paragraph.
Also I should add that the generalization (your rights end where blah blah) was directed at the "spit opponents in the face" nonsense.
Last edited:
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
I think this is the first time I've been called right-wing since I started posting here. Thanks for the laugh.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
Ok, so I was thinking in terms of revolvers and forgot about those single shot, flint-lock pistols when I posted. Doesn't invalidate anything I said though. Try again yourself.
I agree with the ACLU on a few issues, but they think that government gives you rights rather than realizing the fact that you're endowed by your creator with certain inalienable rights, that among those being life, liberty, and property.
Absolutely a member:thumbsup:
The ACLU sometimes takes on some weird cases that I don't agree with. With all the wackos out there from both right and left extremes trying to get their vision of human Nirvana shoved down the throats of everybody else the ACLU is a huge protector of the US Constitution.
For example it is reprehensible for me that someone would put swastikas or some such out on signs in their lawn. When arrested the ACLU would likely defend them because they are exercising their Constitutional right of free speech. And the ACLU is correct as much as I may not like it.
Read the history of almost any totalitarian regime. The loss of rights/freedom didn't happen overnight in most cases. It was a steady erosion of various freedoms by various forces of the government.
We have had some close calls here in the US over the last decade. For me the Jose Padilla case was the worst. A US citizen, arrested on US soil, imprisoned in a military jail, without being charged, without access to lawyers or any other person of HIS choice. It doesn't matter whether he is/was guilty or not. The process outlined in the Constitution needs to be followed always. Fine, follow the process and if convicted jail him, but don't let one person, in this case GWB, put someone in prison without question or oversight.
If the Government can do it to a Jose Padilla then they, potentially can do it to you or your loved ones.
The ACLU sometimes takes on some weird cases that I don't agree with. With all the wackos out there from both right and left extremes trying to get their vision of human Nirvana shoved down the throats of everybody else the ACLU is a huge protector of the US Constitution.
For example it is reprehensible for me that someone would put swastikas or some such out on signs in their lawn. When arrested the ACLU would likely defend them because they are exercising their Constitutional right of free speech. And the ACLU is correct as much as I may not like it.
Read the history of almost any totalitarian regime. The loss of rights/freedom didn't happen overnight in most cases. It was a steady erosion of various freedoms by various forces of the government.
We have had some close calls here in the US over the last decade. For me the Jose Padilla case was the worst. A US citizen, arrested on US soil, imprisoned in a military jail, without being charged, without access to lawyers or any other person of HIS choice. It doesn't matter whether he is/was guilty or not. The process outlined in the Constitution needs to be followed always. Fine, follow the process and if convicted jail him, but don't let one person, in this case GWB, put someone in prison without question or oversight.
If the Government can do it to a Jose Padilla then they, potentially can do it to you or your loved ones.
When you make a general statement that's ridiculous, that's wrong, that even you don't agree with, that doesn't make pointing that out a 'straw man'.
I understand that you want it to be one - you would rather be right, and if it were a straw man, that'd be a very convenient thing for you. Saying it doesn't make it one.
There comes a time for you to realize when it's your statement that's flawed, not the examples pointing out that it's flawed.
I have pointed out clearly how it's flawed - twice, and you continue not only not to get the point, but to completely ignore it.
When I point out how you ignored points, you don't fix it, you just say something like 'oh, I didn't read them before'. Well, hint hint, read them now? Too much to ask?
If I say, "all Republicans are against any civil rights bill", and you post examples of Republicans voting for civil rights bills, I'm not right to say "straw man".
Now, it would be a straw man, if you counted conservative Democrats as Republicans, or you counted non-civil rights bills as civil rights bills.
But that's not the case. I pointed out valid example to *what you said*, but because they're not *what you meant*, you attack the examples, and stand by your 'rule'.
For the third time, to talk to a wall, you said:
"If your mandate is to defend and preserve individual liberties, supporting a narrower reading of a constitutional liberty goes against the mandate. "
So let's take a few of my examples.
On the right to a speedy trial, which IIRC is now interpreted as something like 30 days, is that a "narrower reading" than saying it means one day?
On the right to free speech, which has an exception for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, is restricting that a "narrower reading" than free speech allowing that?
On the right to protection against unreasonable searches, is the probable cause a "narrower reading" of that right than requiring "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
All of these examples are ones where the current law, which the ACLU supports, are the "narrower reading of the right".
And yet, you presumably agree with each of them - and would not say that this position is inconsistent with being a 'civil rights organization'.
YOU SAID - I'll repeat that - YOU SAID - "If your mandate is to defend and preserve individual liberties, supporting a narrower reading of a constitutional liberty goes against the mandate. " So, YOU SAID that in every one of the cases I list, that the current law you presumably support, which is the "narrower reading of a constitutional liberty", is inconsistent with being an organization that protects civil rights.
Now, what's the payoff if you - and the odds are not good - finally get the point? You saying 'oh ok, that's not what you mean, it wasn't worded right'.
Not all that exciting - but look how hard it is, three times so far needed in detail, just to get you to recognize one simple, obvious error you made?
You don't seem to understand that a government either respects or violates what you believe are 'inalienable rights'.
If we remove the right to unreasonable searches from the constitution, and you are daily searched for no reason except the cop is curious what's in your pockets, then the right may still be 'inalienable', but it's being 'alienated' all the same because the government has not recognized it.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,082
- 136
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter