|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 261 of 404:
| 
Jan 18 18:18 UTC 2006 |
I am opposed to the ideas and actions of "terrorists..... Nazis and
criminals" too, but I also do not think they should be deprived of the
Constutional rights that we all share.
It is amazing that so many people do not comprehend this concept. They
jeopardize their own rights by trying to deny them to others.
This issue reminds me of how the Bush administration people have denied
citizens access to public meetings with Bush if they show signs of being
protesters, and how protesters have been segregated off in remote areas
away from Bush motorcades. If they can use their overt powers to deny
citizens their rights in these ways, think of what they can do when they
engage in secret spying and actions against citizens.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 262 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:34 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU DOES support the 2nd Amendment. Just not the 2nd Amendment with
the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State" removed.
Don't reword the 2nd amendment in order to find a way to oppose the ACLU.
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a
collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to
maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the
central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic
and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or
hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does
not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other
weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such
as licensing and registration."
(from http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html)
|
edina
|
|
response 263 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:42 UTC 2006 |
And heck, I support that and never really understand why others don't....
|
jep
|
|
response 264 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:43 UTC 2006 |
I don't think the Constitution says that Nazis should be able to
intimidate Jewish neighborhoods by hosting parades through them. I
don't think that's what freedom is like.
I strongly agree, and have written many times, that suspected
terrorists deserve trials just as anyone else does. The Constitution
works, it should be strictly followed, and if it is adhered to in all
cases, we will not suffer from it. There is no need and no
justification for the president to ever ignore it or to evade it with
secret arrests, foreign military trials, foreign concentration camps,
or infringing on any of the rights of Americans or others. I can't
imagine you and I disagree by the slightest amount about any of that.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 265 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:49 UTC 2006 |
resp:256 There you go, completely missing the point. My statement is
just as ridiculous as the one to which I responded.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 266 of 404:
|
Jan 18 19:42 UTC 2006 |
Parades don't intimidate, although the expression of hatred toward others
can be perceived as a threat. There are laws to deal with threats.
|
naftee
|
|
response 267 of 404:
|
Jan 18 19:53 UTC 2006 |
charades can be intimidating, though
|
jep
|
|
response 268 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:17 UTC 2006 |
There can't possibly be a reasonable interpretation of a group like the
Nazis picking a Jewish neighborhood for a parade, other than
intimidation. The obviousness of that conclusion is overwhelming.
The ACLU picked the side of violence and intimidation in that case.
I'll never forget what they chose to support.
|
klg
|
|
response 269 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:20 UTC 2006 |
That's because they are fundamentalist radicals. Maybe it's a good
thing that they're dominated by athiests.
|
twenex
|
|
response 270 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:22 UTC 2006 |
(Wow. That's rich.)
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 271 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:25 UTC 2006 |
*snickers*
|
nharmon
|
|
response 272 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:28 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment is a cop-out. The ACLU web
page that Rane is referring to used to say something completely
different. It used to cite Janet Reno's opinion that the 2nd amendment
was a collective one. It granted this opinion A LOT of weight, saying
it was the latest and most relevant legal opinion on the subject. This
tune changed when John Ashcroft issued an opinion that the 2nd amendment
inferred an INDIVIDUAL civil right. Apparently the opinion of the
attorney general carries less weight with the ACLU when a republican is
in office.
The ACLU's position is simply an attempt to strike a balance. A balance
between maintaining their reputation as an organization that defends all
civil rights, while pandering to their leftist membership. Personally,
I would much rather they quietly ignore gun cases that were outside
their political ideology than to go on the offensive against these civil
rights.
The ACLU is quite the political animal when it comes to this issue.
Political because usually when they are confronted with an issue with
little or contradicting judicial precedence, they will fall back on the
position that grants the individual the most rights. However in this
case, they do not do this.
The 2nd Amendment is a right granted to "THE PEOPLE". The U.S.
Constitution makes a distinction between the state, and the people who
are citizens of the state. It is very clear when it refers to what the
state can do, and what the people can do. Just look at the tenth
amendment: Any powers not delegated to the state, are granted to the
people. In the the first amendment, the right of the people to assemble
peacefully is not argued by the ACLU as a right belonging to the state.
In the fourth amendment, the right of the people to be secure in their
persons and papers is not argued by the ACLU as a right belonging to the
state.
However, they decide to make this stand on the 2nd amendment. There can
be made no justification for their stance other than one of political
ideology.
|
klg
|
|
response 273 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:43 UTC 2006 |
(Maybe they don't think it is "settled law" based on mega super duper
precedents.)
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 274 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:55 UTC 2006 |
"mega super duper precedents"
I don't know why, but that makes me laugh.
|
drew
|
|
response 275 of 404:
|
Jan 18 22:05 UTC 2006 |
They're 'fraid of getting their asses
shot off I guess...
|
cross
|
|
response 276 of 404:
|
Jan 18 23:55 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 277 of 404:
|
Jan 19 00:46 UTC 2006 |
Nathan STILL seems utterly unable to comprehend what ""A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means. He
accepts a dogma in which that doesn't appear in the amendment, and then
argues as though no one can see it there as plain as day.
|
twenex
|
|
response 278 of 404:
|
Jan 19 00:47 UTC 2006 |
More agreement. Ugh! ;-)
|
richard
|
|
response 279 of 404:
|
Jan 19 00:49 UTC 2006 |
jep said:
"I have no doubt they would cheerfully side with terrorists, as they
have with Nazis and criminals, in order to oppose the interests and
freedom of honest Americans."
Where do you get this? The ACLU's SOLE mission is to DEFEND the
constitutional rights and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of
honest americans. And why did you add the word "honest" anyway? Are
you saying that not all americans deserve the same rights, but
only "honest" americans? Jep, if you as an american have the right to
freedom of speech, doesn't an american who happens to be a nazi have
those same rights? The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh, who hates them,
because his privacy rights were being violated. They defended the KKK,
who hate them, because the members of the KKK who are american citizens
are protected by the same rights that all citizens have.
It is only the right wing media that sensationalize the name "ACLU",
and that started in the late forties and fifties, when the McCarthy
communist witchunt hearings were going on, and McCarthy branded the
ACLU as communist sympathizers because they said that americans who
happened to be communists still had constitutional rights. Jep, let me
ask you this, at what point do you think free american citizens who are
convictd of no crimes, give up their constitutional rights? Does it
matter whether they are nazis or communists or libertarians or
democrats or republicans?
I think you used the word "honest" as some sort of "qualifier", as if
you believe you and others you categorize as "honest" are
somehow "more" american than anyone else. When one person's
constitutional rights are violated, even if it is rush limbaugh, then
ALL of our rights are violated. That is the ACLU's creed.
|
twenex
|
|
response 280 of 404:
|
Jan 19 00:50 UTC 2006 |
If dishonest Americans deserve no rights, then why aren't politicians in
particular and Republicans in general being thrown in the klink?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 281 of 404:
|
Jan 19 01:10 UTC 2006 |
People in the klink deserve rights too. Punishment and "inalienable rights"
should be two different things.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 282 of 404:
|
Jan 19 04:27 UTC 2006 |
I am willing to bet I have read and written much on what "A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
means than you have Rane. Don't try to troll your point across by
accusing us of ignoring it...as though it invalidates the amendment's
purpose as a civil right of THE PEOPLE.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State" is the 2nd amendment's prefatory subordinate clause. You see
these types of clauses all over the place, including in other sections
of the U.S. Constitution. Its purpose is to clarify and justify the
individual civil right. Its status as a suboridnate clause means it
cannot be used to limit the civil right.
Take a completely theoretical civil right worded in similiar 18th
century fashion:
"A well educated citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to read books shall not be infringed."
The prefatory clause can not restrict the later part. For example, you
could not say "this book is not educational, thus we can infringe on you
reading it". Again, the prefatory clause is subordinate and cannot be
used to restrict the right.
Let's look at another part of the constitution that uses a prefatory
subordinate clause. Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;"
Congress's power to secure exclusive rights to authors and inventors is
justified in the promotion of science and useful arts. And because "To
promote the progress of science and useful arts" is a prefatory
subordinate clause, it cannot be used to restrict Congress's powers in
this area. For example, you could not prohibit congress from securing an
author's copyright because it was felt that the art was not useful. This
was part of the SCOTUS's decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 283 of 404:
|
Jan 19 04:29 UTC 2006 |
I will agree that the 2nd amendment needs to be updated. I kinda like
the way the Michigan State Constitution puts it:
Article I Section 6: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for
the defense of himself and the state."
|
sholmes
|
|
response 284 of 404:
|
Jan 19 05:22 UTC 2006 |
Every man has also the right to bear a firearm and go to a pub and drink
himself silly ?
|
bru
|
|
response 285 of 404:
|
Jan 19 06:16 UTC 2006 |
No. Michigan prohibits firearms in a pub. But you do have the right
to own a gun for your defense. cross still thinks of himself as
invulnerable in his military attire? even after all the soldiers who
are getting killed in Iraq? You don't think americans can shoot as
well as iraqi insurgents?
I hate to tell you this cross, but even the updatead body armor that
will stop a russian rifle round will probably not stop a .360 Weatherby
round.
Soldiers are not invulnerable even to pistol rounds if you know how to
shoot properly.
|