^he then proceeded to fellate chuck amato, but he had a little trouble getting his jowels out of the way.

namecalling is fun.

12/11/2005 3:34:19 PM

Hmmm, who's going to be sucking on who's titties tonight.



I agree, this is fun.

12/11/2005 3:36:36 PM

i dunno, thats your mom on the right, correct? ask her.

12/11/2005 3:42:34 PM

Actually, it isn't any fun. It takes away from the discussion and I'm sorry for even responding to somebody like MathFreak.

I was simply making a point, and he so eloquently made it for me and I was wrong to respond to him or pinkandblack in kind.

12/11/2005 3:43:24 PM

the point stands that i like guns and the aclu, and neither look to threaten national stability any time soon.

12/11/2005 3:47:02 PM

wolfpack, you act as if you ever have a defensible argument.

you're as big of a joke as the big girl.

what is so difficult to understand about the ACLU's stance?

12/11/2005 4:23:21 PM

Their supposed neutrality on the issue just goes to show that they are a hypocritical organization. They take such a razor-edged view on every other issue but remain completely aloof and ambiguous on the issue of the 2nd amendment.

12/11/2005 4:36:42 PM

you must not be able to read

Quote :

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms. The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide. "

i think their answer is pretty definite. you're just too stupid to understand it. or maybe you just didn't read it, who knows?

12/11/2005 4:40:51 PM

I guess the part that says N E U T R A L must have gone over your head.

They have definite opinions on everything else, especially the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments and yet they remain on the sidelines on the issue of the 2nd amendment.

They could easily take their stance on the 2nd amendment...

Quote :

"If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

...on EVERY Constitutional issue and yet they don't. Hmmm, can't imagine why they would be so ambiguous on the gun control issue. Look at the language that they use, putting an emphasis on restriction, only shows their true beliefs on the issue of gun rights, hence they are hypocrites.

12/11/2005 4:47:02 PM

I already solved this thread on page 1

12/11/2005 4:49:01 PM

Quote :

"They could easily take their stance on the 2nd amendment..."

and they clearly have. REGULATION IS NOT INFRINGING ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. sounds pretty definite to me.

12/11/2005 5:01:06 PM

Quote :

"Nobody ever says: hey, let's do what the constitution says and allow citizens to have means adequate for protection against the federal government. Not a single conservative says that. I'm against gun control, but it's not a constitutional argument. What's written in the Constitution as it applies now is stupid, and should be ignored, as it is."

Um, being a "math" freak you should appreciate the power of a counterexample. I am a conservative and I strongly believe we should have guns to protect ourselves from government. At the, local, state and federal levels. Furthermore, if you honestly think that no one thinks the constitution should not be read as it is written then you are plainly speaking ignorant. Did you just not listen to the news the past year? Remember the whole discussion about it being a "living breathing document" ?

There are of course liberal judges like Breyer who basically say the constitution should be ignored, and in it's place common sense and agreement with international law inserted. But, all a view like that amounts to is the creation of a judicial aristocracy in this country. Rule by a few "wise" judges who make law based, not on the constitution, but rather on their own common sense. It is precisely this kind of endrun around the constitution that make's law as a whole a joke in this country. Rather than passing constitutional amendments to enlarge the power of the federal government we have crazy rulings that give power to vast federal bureaucracies on the basis of the "interstate commerce clause". If every stupid federal social program had to get a constitutional amendment ( as is pretty much indicated by the strong comments about limiting the scope of the government in the const. itself) then we would have a much smaller government today and the average 1.2 million unborn wouldn't be slaughtered everyyear. The supreme court as it stands is a joke. I sincerely hope that the Bush admin. can put a few more honest judges so we can get back to the law being the law.

As the court stands, it presently does not really protect the rights of individuals. The court tends to side with government not individuals, for example the recent ruling allowing a town to seize property from some home-owner's in order to give it back to some buisness which gets more tax $$ for the town. This ruling alledgely was based on the "eminent domain" clause in the constitution, but is clearly not what that clause was meant for. For more details (not my favorite sources):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html
http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/6_23_05pr.html

if the court took the constitution as it is written then they would do their job and protect individuals from a overreaching federal government.

12/11/2005 7:04:17 PM

I slaughter newborns by the dozens.

It's mayhem!

12/11/2005 7:10:03 PM

Quote :

"being a "math" freak"

I'm guessing you mean math "freak"

12/11/2005 7:34:38 PM

ok, here's my take...

the ACLU, in my mind, clearly has a partisan agenda, and i think it's ridiculous to think that they would never pick and choose in this matter. i think there is some truth to the point that Excoriator and maybe some others are making.


however, wasn't it the ACLU who jumped to the defense of Rush Limbaugh over something (i think it was something to do with his pill addiction)?

12/11/2005 7:34:45 PM

Quote :

". I am a conservative and I strongly believe we should have guns to protect ourselves from government. At the, local, state and federal levels."

wow, and here i was thinking most people had them for sport/protection from crime. are you in the Freemen or something? i was thinking of starting my own militia, actually. we're going to hole up in a house and fight the tyrranical gov. of Fuquay-Varina.

12/11/2005 8:01:32 PM

its only partisan because one party keeps being right

12/11/2005 8:02:20 PM

'm seriously considering joining the ACLU, getting the card, and lamentating my NRA card to the back of it.

Duke - yeah they took up the Limbaugh's case as the police were fishing for information about his doctor shopping for oxy.

12/11/2005 8:17:14 PM

Quote :

"the ACLU, in my mind, clearly has a partisan agenda, and i think it's ridiculous to think that they would never pick and choose in this matter. i think there is some truth to the point that Excoriator and maybe some others are making. however, wasn't it the ACLU who jumped to the defense of Rush Limbaugh over something (i think it was something to do with his pill addiction)?"

Translation:

I dont know shit about ACLU but I know they have a partisan agenda.

12/11/2005 11:15:03 PM

This thread could be retitled: Ad hominem tu quoque. The whole damn thing is a logical fallacy, but a few great minds are clearly enamored by the thread starter's position.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 11:27 PM. Reason : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]

12/11/2005 11:25:18 PM

I certainly wouldn't say they have a partisan agenda. I would just say that there are some civil rights that are just too hard for liberals to defend, no matter how idealistic they want to be.

we all understand this, i think.... some people just want/need to deny it out of principle

12/11/2005 11:40:48 PM

I understand that I don't understand that ^.

12/11/2005 11:43:52 PM

^he's just repeating the same old nonsense, despite the fact that there is a difference in speech rights and gun rights. The ACLU site on the 2nd amendment already explains this, but it's too much to ask him to comprehend and respond to that argument.

Quote :

"BACKGROUND The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times. 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."

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 11:48 PM. Reason : sdf~]

12/11/2005 11:45:38 PM

Quote :

"They have definite opinions on everything else, especially the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments and yet they remain on the sidelines on the issue of the 2nd amendment."

No, they are neutral on the issue of gun control, which is markedly different from being neutral on the issue of the second amendment.

They're quite clear where they stand on the second amendment:

Quote :

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one"

That's pretty much the strongest statement you can make about the right to bear arms. It amounts to saying, unequivocally, that the right to bear arms is not an individual right per se, but a right that is limited by Congress with regards to society's interests.

And therefore, they are neutral with respect to gun control, because under that viewpoint it is purely a legislative issue and not a civil rights issue to be determined in the courts. A "collective" right is by definition determined legislatively, since the legislature represents the collective will.

They could not be any clearer in this matter. They are not on the sidelines, they take the strongest possible pro-gun control position there is.

As to the actual merits of their position: I should note that they take substantially the same position as that flaming left-liberal William F. Buckley, Jr. Although he does not believe that gun ownership is a "collective" right, he does espouse pretty much every "reasonable limitation" aspect argued for by the ACLU, and therefore they are on the same page with regards to judicial policy.

12/12/2005 2:23:07 AM

reasonable limitations on speech

legislatively governed speech permits



anybody in washington can write a nice argument for something. that's why they're in washington

you guys fawn over their average explanation like you've never participated in debate club

12/12/2005 6:54:46 AM

The interpertation of the word militia seems to be a major arguing point. When the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted there were many refrences to a citizen's right and responsiblility to rebel against an unjust government. In addition the militia at the time was simply a group of loosly orgainzed civilians that would come to the defence of their town or state if needed. They were not an organized armed service like the national guard, which is essentially a part of the US Military. It would seem to me that the 2nd Ammendment provides all citizens... (or in that day at least all males), the right to posses a firearm.

Secondly the ACLU is a group that has changed vastly from what it began as. They helped to litigate some great issues such as the Gideon case which assures everyone accused of a crime counsel. However their leadership is taking them down a bit of an extreamist road. They are currently suing in Mass. because they contend red light cameras violate your right to privacy.... They are a group that has very liberal views but do not want to openly admit it. Instead they simply push causes that they are interested in. I say more power to them, but they should at least be honest about it.

12/12/2005 7:28:00 AM

haha peeps on here defending aclu like they were conservatives defending fox news

12/12/2005 8:35:31 AM

^ i dont saying this but im with you on this. If you're a liberal and you discuss defending the rights of American its kinda hard to stand up for stuff you think is completely ridiculous. But its also a pain in the ass to be called a baby killer when you interpret things differently than a dude in overalls

12/12/2005 9:39:48 AM

Quote :

"But its also a pain in the ass to be called a baby killer when you interpret things differently than a dude in overalls"

aw fuck ya killed the thread

12/12/2005 10:09:45 AM