If the ACLU is always in support of constitutional rights, then why have they never defended a 2nd amendment case? And why did they kick people out of their organization who became minute men on the Mexican border? The minute men are doing a perfectly legal protest against illegal immigrants but the ACLU hates it. Seems that the ACLU is completely hypocritical. They will support the Man Boy Love Assiciation but not minute men, hummmmm

12/11/2005 8:25:50 AM

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Quote :

""Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?" 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. IN BRIEF 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. ACLU POLICY "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47 ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment to the Constitution "Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976) Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles. If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said. In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case. "

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

Quote :

"NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."

12/11/2005 9:34:41 AM

Quote :

"IN BRIEF The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control."

translation:

Quote :

"IN BRIEF The majority of our members are flaming liberals and we'd catch hell if we defended the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, we ourselves are all flaming liberals and have no desire to see the 2nd amendment survive."

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 9:40 AM. Reason : s]

12/11/2005 9:39:54 AM

So does your friend know you have her topless photo on the TWW?





Notice the two moles match the girl on the lower right in pink

12/11/2005 9:42:43 AM

also the freckle on her collar bone

12/11/2005 9:45:03 AM

I believe my job here is done

12/11/2005 9:48:25 AM

ummm, those are some huge implant scars

chick got butchered.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 9:57 AM. Reason : -]

12/11/2005 9:57:27 AM

^ has apparently never been with a woman.

those are marks from wearing a bra all day.

12/11/2005 9:59:31 AM

Maybe an incorrectly fitting bra with an underwire

still those looks much more like scars

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 10:04 AM. Reason : 0]

12/11/2005 10:01:45 AM

absolutely not. from her apparent size in pic #1, she probably has a penchant for push-up bras (form enhancing, whatever they're called)

those marks are right in line with what should be expected from wearing something like that for an extended period of time

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 10:04 AM. Reason : s]

12/11/2005 10:03:31 AM

maybe from a push up. i dont know. i dont see many push up bras. i prefer women who dont need them.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 10:05 AM. Reason : 0]

12/11/2005 10:04:14 AM

you'd think a person who paid thousands of dollars for implants would get bigger ones dont you?

12/11/2005 10:22:12 AM

Quote :

"translation: ... "

translation:


Hey, it's a new day and here's another topic where I don't even have a coherent position of my own, let alone being able to argue a well presented argument of the opponents. Wait... won't a simple "liberals suck" do? I mean, trikk, the bi girl and aaronburro will be on my side, I can bet money on that.

12/11/2005 10:25:40 AM

^^not everyone goes for huge ones

they dont look small to me at all

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 10:53 AM. Reason : -]

12/11/2005 10:53:05 AM

More soap box threads need to result in titties.

12/11/2005 10:57:09 AM

Excoriator, still think you're not a troll?

12/11/2005 10:59:48 AM

those aren't implant scars

12/11/2005 12:05:46 PM

who said they were?

12/11/2005 12:08:36 PM

Quote :

"Josh8315 All American 18260 Posts user info edit post ummm, those are some huge implant scars chick got butchered. [Edited on December 11, 2005 at 9:57 AM. Reason : -] 12/11/2005 9:57:27 AM "

12/11/2005 12:14:34 PM

how many posts up was that?

12/11/2005 12:22:04 PM

And yet another inquiry gone awry.

Notice that when liberals are confronted with honest questions about their beliefs that they are the 1st to hijack the subject and switch the focus of the discussion, usually to childish namecalling or some other antic. Magicians call it illusion; the leftists here are no where as suave or talented to draw attention away from the topics at hand but they do use their own 2nd grade version of this (no offense to 2nd graders).

12/11/2005 12:33:12 PM

how DARE you?

12/11/2005 12:36:50 PM

Quote :

"I believe my job here is done"

Hahahahaha

Quote :

"ummm, those are some huge implant scars"

She had just been wearing a bra.

12/11/2005 12:44:21 PM

Further translation:

If your position isn't the same as republicans, you are a flaming liberal.


Even though your position is to ignore the issue altogether.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 12:57 PM. Reason : dsf]

12/11/2005 12:57:04 PM

The ACLU is hypocritical. This is not news.

SHOULD WE TOSS OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER THOUGH?

12/11/2005 12:59:14 PM

LIBERALS CUT AND RUN

12/11/2005 1:03:02 PM

Talking to me?

12/11/2005 1:03:19 PM

12/11/2005 1:05:00 PM

I saw a big rambling argument about why the ACLU won't defend the 2nd amendment. Any lawyer could make the same or similar arguments about any aspect of the constitution.

I understand why they can't, but it would be nice if they'd just be honest and say, "look ya'll, you know we're liberals - you be trippin if you think we're gonna defend some redneck's gun rights"

12/11/2005 1:08:29 PM

Quote :

"otice that when liberals are confronted with honest questions about their beliefs that they are the 1st to hijack the subject and switch the focus of the discussion, usually to childish namecalling or some other antic. Magicians call it illusion; the leftists here are no where as suave or talented to draw attention away from the topics at hand but they do use their own 2nd grade version of this (no offense to 2nd graders)."

Translation:

Hi, I'm a pigface, or a tractor boy. Whichever you prefer. The second post in this thread contains at the very least a very well thought out argument why the debate over the 2nd amendment is so overrated. Among other things, it specifically addresses why BOTH liberals and conservatives AS A PRACTICAL MATTER do not support a militia which would be able to resist the federal government militarily. Which renders the conservative whinings moot.

Should I try and refute that? Well, not really. It's not like I have required intellectual capabilities. But that "liberals suck" is a nice idea! Let me repeat that! The bi girl can suck two dicks. Why let Excoriator have all the fun?

Quote :

" Any lawyer could make the same or similar arguments about any aspect of the constitution."

Name one other instance where there is a universal consensus that the entire article AS IT READS is COMPLETELY obsolete.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 1:15 PM. Reason : . ]

12/11/2005 1:14:03 PM

Quote :

"universal consensus"

and yet, the ACLU disavows the use of "universal consensus" in its defense of free speech rights:

Quote :

"But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive."

12/11/2005 1:17:19 PM

Wow, I guess you caught them... wait, somewhere they made a logical argument (which nobody would even address, let alone refute) that fighting for the letter of the 2nd amendement is equivalent to fighting for the right of a private citizen to own a nuke.

Could it be that a right to free speech and a personal right to own a nuke carry different weights? I mean maybe they think the history has shown that attacks on free speech have consistently harmed societies and individuals, whereas people's inability to nuke their neighbors if nothing else didn't negatively affect anyone's life nearly as much?

12/11/2005 1:26:09 PM

well, like i said originally, any lawyer worth a shit can make a convincing argument about how this or that right has more weight than another right.

the point is, they've got their pet issues which, by and large, conform to a generally liberal ideology. there are some exceptions, of course, but when it comes to gun control it would be nice if they'd cut the BS and admit the real reason why they're "neutral"

but like i said, I understand why they can't do it. And i understand why you'll feel the need to keep rationalizing it. Its just a pipe-dream of mine, kind of like world peace or clean energy.

and, for the record, i'm a strong supporter of the ACLU - I'm just willing to look at things rationally.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 1:32 PM. Reason : s]

12/11/2005 1:32:04 PM

Quote :

"well, like i said originally, any lawyer worth a shit can make a convincing argument about how this or that right has more weight than another right."

Once again, it's not that the second amendment as it reads carries less weight. It's that it's absolutely ridiculous. Nobody takes it seriously. Including the conservatives. Any argument against gun regulation never mentions the Constitution. People talk about how it's safer if you have a gun. How it's unfair that you can't have a gun, since criminals have them anyway etc.

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.

12/11/2005 1:39:28 PM

so if everyone started to feel that a right to political speech or whatever was completely stupid, you'd be A-OK with the ACLU ceding that right as well?

its a lot easier to just come out and admit that they're not defending the 2nd amendment because they're liberals. its OK to admit that - everyone knows it.... it doesn't lessen the significance and necessity of their other work at all.

12/11/2005 1:41:47 PM

Quote :

"so if everyone started to feel that a right to political speech or whatever was completely stupid, you'd be A-OK with the ACLU ceding that right as well?"

Yes, because they have limited resources and they should protect people's genuine interests. If something is of no concern to anyone, they should not be wasting resources doing that. But then of course, you took something that you know is of a lot of concern to a lot of people, assumed an alternative reality, and then think you'll be able to use the conclusion obtained from false premises to argue your point.

Quote :

"its a lot easier to just come out and admit that they're not defending the 2nd amendment because they're liberals. its OK to admit that - everyone knows it.... it doesn't lessen the significance and necessity of their other work at all."

You cannot defend your argument by simply reiterating it.

12/11/2005 1:47:51 PM

Quote :

"Yes, because they have limited resources and they should protect people's genuine interests. If something is of no concern to anyone, they should not be wasting resources doing that"

Interesting. I wonder if you'll spin this response going forward. As it stands, now, I accept your statement and acknowledge your consistency, although I doubt you meant what you said, as it is written.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that the vast majority of ACLU employees would vehemently protest what you said.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 1:52 PM. Reason : s]

12/11/2005 1:50:47 PM

No, I will not spin it. Because the argument I made was based on assumptions that were totally unrealistic. To argue my point, you'd have to present me a situation where it would be somehow objectively obvious that one thing is right or in everyone's interest, and everybody supports the opposite. Good luck with that.

12/11/2005 1:59:47 PM

Liberal hypocricy is running wild once again, what else is new?

12/11/2005 2:00:09 PM

Quote :

"No, I will not spin it. Spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin. Spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin. Spin spin spin spin spin spin spin"

j/k

12/11/2005 2:01:40 PM

In summary,

1. I will not argue that ACLU is "liberally leaning". My position has always been that if you take general population there's no divide between two parties on economic policies. However, there is a divide on social issues, and every sane person should take liberal stand. Again, being objective doesn't imply you should be half human, half neanderthal.

2. I do sincerely believe the gun control debate has nothing to do with Constitution. I argued as much many times here. It's pure common sense. Unwillingness to argue against common sense is by itself not an indicator of political leanings.

12/11/2005 2:11:13 PM

i think the root of the problem, here, is their name. They should rename themselves the American Common Sense Liberties Union, ACSLU.

this is the perfect solution because, after all, this is how liberals solve all of their problems - with a simple name change.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 2:17 PM. Reason : s]

12/11/2005 2:14:17 PM

They do not always argue common sense. I don't understand their argument against parental notification in the case of an abotion, for example. However, most of American Constitution is common sense, and anyone who defends it deserves an almost automatic support.

12/11/2005 2:17:20 PM

hey, i own a gun and i like the aclu, am i a moron or what?

12/11/2005 2:26:02 PM

hmm, time for some gun porn!

12/11/2005 2:27:01 PM

man... when the revolution comes I am so killing a lot of you with my Second Amendment rights

12/11/2005 3:15:39 PM

Quote :

"Hi, I'm a pigface, or a tractor boy. Whichever you prefer. "

Translation: I'm a typical queer ass Russian loser who hates this country and enjoys commenting on the looks of other males on the internet. My fat hairy wife is just a cover that I put out and the kid really belongs to my pet donkey.

12/11/2005 3:27:38 PM

NM

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 3:50 PM. Reason : ]

12/11/2005 3:31:17 PM

those who live in glass houses should not throw stones

go ahead, post a pic of me and call me a fag

12/11/2005 3:32:31 PM

My pink shadow strikes again.

I was simply giving one of your own a taste of your own medicine.

Oh yeah...fag. Don't get off too many times to that picture.



[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

12/11/2005 3:33:08 PM