Link to a mainstream web site?
Now it sounds like you're singling out an organization for something everyone does.
I meant to say the LA County flag and it's a cross that represents the influence of the church and the history of the missions of California that the ACLU wanted removed.
Apparently there is also a cross on that flag. This is a problem for people that are non-christians. I know that is hard for you to understand. I'm sure you would be fine if a county flag you lived in had a crescent on it.
I was up until they sold my address to every whackjob political group left of American Socialists.
Has been since bushco took over anyway. :disgust:
Opinions vary my friend, and yours are worth no more than anyone elses.
I voted "somewhat good" but "very good" could also be valid. On ocassion they do fight the battle that I just cannot agree with, and at times even understand.
On the flip side, when you are fighting for and defending liberties, you must respond by fighting EVERY attack on freedoms. If they don't, they the opressor will succeed by simply chipping away at these freedoms.
On the flip side, when you are fighting for and defending liberties, you must respond by fighting EVERY attack on freedoms. If they don't, they the opressor will succeed by simply chipping away at these freedoms.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
Card carrying member and was once the Executive director of the local org...at my college...
Their second amendment viewpoint is dead on IMHO
Their second amendment viewpoint is dead on IMHO
I am in favor of gun control, but I find their position weak. I posted a link to their position above. They say a) that the 2nd amendment is meant only to protect militias. This is what the SC says too but that in itself is not an argument since it's not like the ACLU agrees with everything the Court says. There other argument is that "obviously some regulation is required" and that since it's unclear from the constitution, congress should decide. Well, the problem with this is that the same argument could be applied to the other rights. The whole constitution is vague and obviously you are going to need to balance some rights. Yet in other areas the ACLU nevertheless pursues the "most freedom as possible" view. Again, I think the 2nd amendment is outdated and should be removed, but I don't see how it is consistent with their mission to ignore it. I'm open to persuasion though.
I think it may vary, I'm not sure. All I know is the local Arizona ACLU chapter is gross and asinine. Particularly when it come to immigration issues. Idiots.
I am curious how it is that the 2nd would be the ONLY amendment (of the Bill of Rights) that doesn't give rights to citizens and restrict government if your interpretation is correct (or maybe the 10th in part, depending again on your interpretation).
Actually current studies and hearings have upheld it as an individual right. You can research the fifth circuit courts ruling in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON. The justice department found similarly and you can read about it here.
It is well established that the ultimate check and balance placed upon the united states government was the responsibility of the people of this nation to rise up against the government should it fail to continue being a representative body of the people. Our very core documents speak of this responsiblity:
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Most of the founders spoke freely of the need of the people to have the power to stand against their government should it become necessary. See the following:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or excercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." ~ Abraham Lincoln
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." ~ Abraham Lincoln
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth." ~ George Washington
"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." ~ George Washington
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson
It should be fairly obvious even from these few readings that not only is the 2nd amendment about individual rights, but rights enumerated to be used specifically against the government should the need arise.
Fairly good discussion of it here:
stuff
Major players in our government agree it is a personal right. Now mind you, I don't like Ashcroft and I think he deeply hurt our Constitution and our liberties...but about the 2nd amendment he was correct:
Ashcroft Declares for Second Amendment
ournation note: This alert has been changed by removing several line breaks to make it more web friendly, however the content has not been changed
GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE !!ALERT!!
Chris W. Stark - Director
P.O. Box 1924
Crosby, Texas 77532-1924
Ph. 1-713-202-9548 Fax 1-810-283-7459
http://www.GOA-Texas.org
email: Director@GOA-Texas.org
24 May 2001
+++++++++++++++++
Text of Ashcroft Letter - Ashcroft Declares For Second
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Copyright © 2001 by Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas).
Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert
is left intact in its original state.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To view our previous alert in reference to this Historic action, go to:
http://www.goa-texas.org/cgi-bin/alerts/mb.pl?PN=148
With Respect, Gun Owners Alliance
Chris W. Stark - Director
**************************
http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00027.html
By Neal Knox
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (May 20) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft put himself and George W. Bush's Justice Department solidly on the side of gunowners this week, firmly declaring it is "unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."
His stunning proclamation -- exactly opposite the position taken by Bill Clinton's Justice Department during the government's appeal of the still-pending Emerson case -- came in a May 17 letter to NRA-ILA Executive Director Jim Baker, from which Baker delightedly read at yesterday's Annual Meeting of NRA Members.
Ashcroft's letter could not have come at a more important time, for a vote on various gun amendments -- including some that both houses of Congress passed in 1999 -- could occur in the Senate at any time. The Attorney General's position could cause many Congressmen to reassess their votes.
Further, the Attorney General's statements that the Second Amendment is an individual right could influence the outcome of Emerson, in which Lubbock, Texas, Federal Judge Sam Cummings two years ago reached the same conclusion and blocked prosecution of Dr. Timothy Emerson for possessing a firearm while under a routine divorce restraining order.
The Clinton Justice Department immediately appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case last June and is expected to rule shortly. Most observers believe that unless the Circuit Court holds for Emerson on Fifth Amendment grounds the case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court -- where the Second Amendment would be argued by the Bush-appointed Solicitor General.
Ashcroft wrote: "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of 'the people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted [the same] throughout the Bill of Rights.....
"Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers."
Ashcroft cites the Federalist Papers 46 and 29; Thomas Jefferson. who wrote: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms;" and George Mason, who said during Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Ashcroft pointed out that his view of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right "is not a novel position. In early decisions, the United States Supreme Court routinely indicated that the right protected by the Second Amendment applied to individuals. See, e.g., logan v. United States...(1892); Miller v. Texas ...(1893); Robertson v. Baldwin ...(1897); Maxwell v. Dow ... (1900).
"Justice Story embraced the same view in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution ... (1833). It is the view that was adopted by United States Attorney General Homer Cummings before Congress in testifying about the constitutionality of the first federal gun control statue, the National Firearms Act of 1934.
"As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act....
"Significantly, the individual rights view is embraced by the preponderance of legal scholarship on the subject, which, I note, includes articles by academics on both ends of the political spectrum. See, e.g., William Van Alstyne, 'The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms' ... (Duke Law Journal) (1994),
Akhil Reed Amar, 'The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment,' Yale L.J. ... (1992); Sanford Levinson, 'The Embarrassing Second Amendment,' Yale L.J. ... (1989), Don Kates, 'Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,' (Michigan Law Review) (1983).
"In light of this vast body of evidence, I believe it is clear that the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes. As I was reminded during my confirmation hearing, some hold a different view and would, in effect, read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. I must respectfully disagree with this view, for when I was sworn as Attorney General of the United States, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That responsibility applies to all parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment."
=====================BEGIN ASHCROFT LETTER=========================
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
May 17, 2001
Mr. James Jay Baker
Executive Director
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Dear Mr. Baker,
Thank you for your letter of April 10, 2001 regarding my views on the Second Amendment. While I cannot comment on any pending litigation, let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.
While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of "the people," which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted throughout the Bill of Rights. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) (plurality opinion). Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. See, e.g., Federalist No. 46 (Madison); Federalist No. 29 (Hamilton); see also, Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1764 ("No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."; George Mason at Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention 1788 ("I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.").
This is not a novel position. In early decisions, the United States Supreme Court routinely indicated that the right protected by the Second Amendment applied to individuals. See, e.g., logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 276 (1892); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1893); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900). Justice Story embraced the same view in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution. See 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution Sec. 1890, p. 746 (1833) It is the view that was adopted by United States Attorney General Homer Cummings before Congress in testifying about the constitutionality of the first federal gun control statue, the Nation Firearms Act of 1934. See The National Firearms Act of 1934: Hearings on H.R. 9066 Before the House Comm. on Ways and Means, 73rd Cong. 6, 13, 19 (1934). As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
See Pub. L. No. 99-308, Sec. 1(b) (1986). Significantly, the individual rights view is embraced by the preponderance of legal scholarship on the subject, which, I note, includes articles by academics on both ends of the political spectrum. See, e.g., William Van Alstyne, 'The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms', 43 Duke L.J. 1236 (1994), Akhil Reed Amar,
'The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment,' 101 Yale L.J. 1193 (1992); Sanford Levinson, 'The Embarrassing Second Amendment,' 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989), Don Kates, 'Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,' 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983).
In light of this vast body of evidence, I believe it is clear that the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes.(1) As I was reminded during my confirmation hearing, some hold a different view and would, in effect, read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. I must respectfully disagree with this view, for when I was sworn as Attorney General of the United States, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That responsibility applies to all parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
(signed)
John Ashcroft
Attorney General
My other comment on your post is simply this:
Postulate for me on the removal of the 2nd amendment from our constitution. How would it be accomplished, why should it be done and what do you foresee the ramifications as?
I like to ask that because it's really not enough to talk about the Utopia of a gunless America. Even if we ignore the basic elements and discuss purely the real-world immediate implications I've found it generally leads to acceptance of the impossibility of such an endeavor, and more importantly demonstrates that such an event would, in matter of fact, create a far worse situation than currently exists. But like you, I'm always open to persuasion.
eplebnista
Lifer
- Dec 3, 2001
- 24,123
- 36
- 91
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Why am I not surprised, it's the ACLU's job to protect the poor, downtrodden and even immigrants from whackos like you.
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