|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 286 of 404:
|
Jan 19 06:49 UTC 2006 |
Re #282: that's all just grammatical sophistry designed to claim your
preferred interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I interpret it to mean that
the right to bear arms is only associated with a well regulated militia.
That's how the US Supreme Court interprets it, which should settle the
matter until the court addresses the issue again.
"The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the
Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional
enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm
individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a
militia or other such public force."
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/)
Haggling over it doesn't change the decision of the Supreme Court.
|
twenex
|
|
response 287 of 404:
|
Jan 19 08:50 UTC 2006 |
Nathan can talk till the cows come home about how he fully understands the
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"
preamble of the second amendment, but his response in #283 shows that he
considers it totally irrelevant. A random collection of citizens, however, is
neither "well-regulated" nor capable of forming "a militia" if composed
entirely of autonomous individuals.
|
klg
|
|
response 288 of 404:
|
Jan 19 11:46 UTC 2006 |
Curl - Get over it. Maybe those are the shadows of the penumbras from
the emanations of the 2nd amendment. Or maybe it's because of the
hyper mega super duper precedents applying to the 2nd amendment. And
don't forget that the constitution is a living, breathing document.
(At least, that's what a liberal might say when dealing with, say,
abortion.)
RW - The ACLU is, at a minimum, tainted by the beliefs of its founders,
not to mention its current wackos.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 289 of 404:
|
Jan 19 14:28 UTC 2006 |
To add onto #285, Michigan also has strict penalties for carrying a
pistol with even a small amount of alcohol in your system. I think the
limit is a blood alcohol content of 0.02. Compare to the level at which
you will be charged with Driving while Under the Influence, 0.08. Also,
to carry a pistol concealed on your person you have to complete a
training course, and pass a background check that includes fingerprint
checks.
There is a stigma that Americans are gun-toting rednecks on a rampage.
In reality, those Americans who are armed give up a lot of time, money
and personal privacy in order to do so.
Re 286 and 287: I have demonstrated the correct way to read prefatory
language as used during the 18th century. The operative provision is to
be taken on its own, and only when there is ambiguity with it, do you
look to the prefatory clause for clarification. When the two disagree,
the operative provision wins. Always. Game over, man. Game over.
But if you want to ignore that, that is fine with me. "Grammatical
sophistry"? That made me laugh.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 290 of 404:
|
Jan 19 16:15 UTC 2006 |
>In reality, those Americans who are armed give up a lot of time, money
>and personal privacy in order to do so.
Those who are legally armed do give up some, maybe.
|