| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2007 10:59:46 PM |
| Object: |
Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. Here's ten:
10. The ACLU was founded by a Communist, with communist ideals,
communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda
on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated
clearly...
My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege
and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which
has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and
unemployment?Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and
ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself?I seek the social
ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole
control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
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.?ACLU Policy
#47
#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing
everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked
their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools,
and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the
military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that
attempts to charter them.
#7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it's
the ACLU's top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free
speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against
the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or
euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to
support it. The only exception to the ACLU's pro-death stance, is if
it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.
#6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the
Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech,
protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they
have helped illegals cross the border.
#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under
the guise of "seperation of Church and State", the ACLU have made a
name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area
where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all
churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against
Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are
taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or
tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize
America, and rewrite our history.
#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost
every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to
bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of
search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved
they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they
don't practice the principles they preach.
Take a walk into the NYCLU?s Manhattan headquarters - which it shares
with other organizations - and you?ll find a sign warning visitors
that all bags are subject to search.
#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one.
They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980's.
And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the
right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue
that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations
such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to
support terrorism.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from
two of it?s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and
Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions
demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.
?The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in
any activity that ?promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the
destruction of any state.?
The Rockefeller Foundation?s provisions state that recipients of its
funds may not ?directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support
other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist
activity.?
#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like
NAMBLA.
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S.
Attorney General?s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the
Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child
pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of
child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution
could not be.
There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.
#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I
say on this one?
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
31 Mar 2007 11:07:01 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. Here's ten:
My guess would be that every time a psycho like you
lies about the ACLU they experience a surge in new
memberships.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
31 Mar 2007 11:39:10 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175400421.747891.237980@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
"J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. Here's ten:
My guess would be
Feed that troll.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 11:14:42 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. Here's ten:
....
#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing
everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked
their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools,
and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the
military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that
attempts to charter them.
I know you're a post-only trolling idiot, but public schools
can't run private clubs that exclude atheists. I had a lot to
do with removing packs & troops from public school sponsorship,
working with the IL ACLU, and you're damn right any school that
discriminates against atheists would get their pants sued off.
Civil right violations are not trivial.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 08:50:27 AM |
|
|
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 11:31:30 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit.
It's false to claim that they don't believe in the
second amendment. They simply interpret it differently
than you.
If the ACLU is going to claim to defend the rights of
Americans, it should defend them *all*,
Put up or shut up. There's millions of convicted felons
"Denied Their Second Amendment Right."
Enlighten us all. Detail your efforts to undo this
trampling of the second amendment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 02:42:44 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 04:54:43 PM |
|
|
In article <87ircflw18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
Both the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit agree with the NRA's
interpretation of the amendment. Funny how the ACLU ignores that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 06:34:40 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87ircflw18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
Both the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit agree with the NRA's
interpretation of the amendment. Funny how the ACLU ignores that.
The Supreme Court overrides both of those, and what about the other
circuit courts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 08:05:08 PM |
|
|
In article <87d52nllam.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87ircflw18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
Both the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit agree with the NRA's
interpretation of the amendment. Funny how the ACLU ignores that.
The Supreme Court overrides both of those
And the Supreme Court has yet to rule.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 08:09:29 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87d52nllam.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87ircflw18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
Both the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit agree with the NRA's
interpretation of the amendment. Funny how the ACLU ignores that.
The Supreme Court overrides both of those
And the Supreme Court has yet to rule.
Just wait.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
02 Apr 2007 06:05:24 AM |
|
|
In article <877isvbmxi.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87d52nllam.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87ircflw18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to
claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not
pick and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
Both the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit agree with the NRA's
interpretation of the amendment. Funny how the ACLU ignores that.
The Supreme Court overrides both of those
And the Supreme Court has yet to rule.
Just wait.
I am. Given the current makeup of the Court, the odds greatly favor a
ruling in line with how I feel. Of course when that happens, the ACLU
still won't recognize it as a right or defend the 2nd Amendment, despite
what their charter says.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 04:26:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:42:44 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
No. They just want to know what part of the phrase "the right of THE
PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" the gun grabbers are having a problem
understanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 05:03:31 PM |
|
|
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:42:44 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
No. They just want to know what part of the phrase "the right of THE
PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" the gun grabbers are having a problem
understanding.
"THE people". Not "people".
Gun nuts have problems with English.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 08:20:44 PM |
|
|
In article <46102c33$0$14116$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:42:44 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
No. They just want to know what part of the phrase "the right of THE
PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" the gun grabbers are having a problem
understanding.
"THE people". Not "people".
Gun nuts have problems with English.
Ah, so I guess when they wrote the 1st Amendment and included the
phrase: "or the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances" they didn't mean
that you personally have a right to assemble and criticize the
government. Only society as a whole has that right. And if the
government wants to limit your individual ability to protest, that's
perfectly okay. Right?
Or does this special rule of English you've discovered only apply to the
2nd Amendment?
Or how about the 4th Amendment: The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
Or the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to
the states respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.
This one's a doozy in terms of your peculiar version of the English
language because they specifically distinguish THE PEOPLE from the State.
Perhaps it's you who has the problem with English after all?
Bottom line is that the Bill of Rights taken in its entirety is a
laundry list of the rights enjoyed by the individual citizens, not
collective rights held by society as a whole. It would be odd indeed for
the Founders to have set about enumerating all these individual rights
and then when it came to the 2nd Amendment, suddenly do an about-face
and restrict that right to be held collectively by the very government
they so distrusted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 10:56:01 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <46102c33$0$14116$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gun nuts have problems with English.
Ah, so I guess when they wrote the 1st Amendment and included the
phrase: "or the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances" they didn't mean
that you personally have a right to assemble and criticize the
government. Only society as a whole has that right. And if the
government wants to limit your individual ability to protest, that's
perfectly okay. Right?
Or does this special rule of English you've discovered only apply to the
2nd Amendment?
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
02 Apr 2007 05:55:33 AM |
|
|
In article <87r6r3zavh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <46102c33$0$14116$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gun nuts have problems with English.
Ah, so I guess when they wrote the 1st Amendment and included the
phrase: "or the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances" they didn't mean
that you personally have a right to assemble and criticize the
government. Only society as a whole has that right. And if the
government wants to limit your individual ability to protest, that's
perfectly okay. Right?
Or does this special rule of English you've discovered only apply to the
2nd Amendment?
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
It doesn't "impact" it. It illuminates it. It's one reason why the
people should have the right. Not the sole reason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
03 Apr 2007 07:28:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:55:33 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <87r6r3zavh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
It doesn't "impact" it. It illuminates it. It's one reason why the
people should have the right. Not the sole reason.
What other reasons are stated in the 2nd amendment?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
03 Apr 2007 07:25:56 PM |
|
|
In article <32i4135mq7oeqvmq1o9k3kblrkj8pcsoke@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:55:33 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <87r6r3zavh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
It doesn't "impact" it. It illuminates it. It's one reason why the
people should have the right. Not the sole reason.
What other reasons are stated in the 2nd amendment?
First tell me where it's required that an amendment must state reasons
in order to be valid?
What reasons were listed for guaranteeing the freedom of speech?
None.
I guess it must be invalid, huh?
[Hint: the fact that they listed one reason hardly precludes there from
being others nor does it require that all others be listed in order to
be valid.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
03 Apr 2007 09:56:00 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <32i4135mq7oeqvmq1o9k3kblrkj8pcsoke@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:55:33 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <87r6r3zavh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
It doesn't "impact" it. It illuminates it. It's one reason why the
people should have the right. Not the sole reason.
What other reasons are stated in the 2nd amendment?
First tell me where it's required that an amendment must state reasons
in order to be valid?
When the amendment states the reasons for it to be valid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
04 Apr 2007 05:48:04 PM |
|
|
In article <461313c0$0$14092$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <32i4135mq7oeqvmq1o9k3kblrkj8pcsoke@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:55:33 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <87r6r3zavh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
It doesn't "impact" it. It illuminates it. It's one reason why the
people should have the right. Not the sole reason.
What other reasons are stated in the 2nd amendment?
First tell me where it's required that an amendment must state reasons
in order to be valid?
When the amendment states the reasons for it to be valid.
Non-responsive. I asked for a quote as to where this legal principle is
codified. You just saying it proves nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
04 Apr 2007 11:05:29 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <461313c0$0$14092$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <32i4135mq7oeqvmq1o9k3kblrkj8pcsoke@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:55:33 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <87r6r3zavh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
It doesn't "impact" it. It illuminates it. It's one reason why the
people should have the right. Not the sole reason.
What other reasons are stated in the 2nd amendment?
First tell me where it's required that an amendment must state reasons
in order to be valid?
When the amendment states the reasons for it to be valid.
Non-responsive.
You just don't like the response.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
04 Apr 2007 08:42:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:48:04 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <461313c0$0$14092$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <32i4135mq7oeqvmq1o9k3kblrkj8pcsoke@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:55:33 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <87r6r3zavh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
It doesn't "impact" it. It illuminates it. It's one reason why the
people should have the right. Not the sole reason.
What other reasons are stated in the 2nd amendment?
First tell me where it's required that an amendment must state reasons
in order to be valid?
When the amendment states the reasons for it to be valid.
Non-responsive.
When you snip the responsive part, sure. I don't play your game.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
04 Apr 2007 11:08:20 PM |
|
|
In article <ouk813tk641926av8rtjertg1uda7n2tl6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:48:04 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <461313c0$0$14092$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <32i4135mq7oeqvmq1o9k3kblrkj8pcsoke@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:55:33 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <87r6r3zavh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in
the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
It doesn't "impact" it. It illuminates it. It's one reason why the
people should have the right. Not the sole reason.
What other reasons are stated in the 2nd amendment?
First tell me where it's required that an amendment must state reasons
in order to be valid?
When the amendment states the reasons for it to be valid.
Non-responsive.
When you snip the responsive part, sure. I don't play your game.
Wow. When did you suddenly morph into Ray Fischer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
05 Apr 2007 07:42:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:08:20 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <ouk813tk641926av8rtjertg1uda7n2tl6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
When you snip the responsive part, sure. I don't play your game.
Wow. When did you suddenly morph into Ray Fischer?
I swear, I was NOT fishing for a compliment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
04 Apr 2007 06:48:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:25:56 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <32i4135mq7oeqvmq1o9k3kblrkj8pcsoke@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:55:33 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <87r6r3zavh.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Why do you think the phrase "a well-regulated militia" would be in the
2nd Amendment if it wasn't meant to have some impact on a right to
bear arms?
It doesn't "impact" it. It illuminates it. It's one reason why the
people should have the right. Not the sole reason.
What other reasons are stated in the 2nd amendment?
First tell me where it's required that an amendment must state reasons
in order to be valid?
YOU'RE the one claiming that there are reasons other than the sole one
mentioned. I'm reading the amendment AS WRITTEN.
[Hint: the fact that they listed one reason hardly precludes there from
being others
Nor is it evidence that there were others.
nor does it require that all others be listed in order to
be valid.]
It requires that any you claim ARE reasons be listed. Otherwise it's
just your assertion that there were others.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
02 Apr 2007 01:07:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:20:44 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <46102c33$0$14116$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:42:44 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
No. They just want to know what part of the phrase "the right of THE
PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" the gun grabbers are having a problem
understanding.
"THE people". Not "people".
Gun nuts have problems with English.
Ah, so I guess when they wrote the 1st Amendment and included the
phrase: "or the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances" they didn't mean
that you personally have a right to assemble and criticize the
government. Only society as a whole has that right. And if the
government wants to limit your individual ability to protest, that's
perfectly okay. Right?
Or does this special rule of English you've discovered only apply to the
2nd Amendment?
Or how about the 4th Amendment: The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
Or the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to
the states respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.
This one's a doozy in terms of your peculiar version of the English
language because they specifically distinguish THE PEOPLE from the State.
Perhaps it's you who has the problem with English after all?
Bottom line is that the Bill of Rights taken in its entirety is a
laundry list of the rights enjoyed by the individual citizens, not
collective rights held by society as a whole. It would be odd indeed for
the Founders to have set about enumerating all these individual rights
and then when it came to the 2nd Amendment, suddenly do an about-face
and restrict that right to be held collectively by the very government
they so distrusted.
And governments that don't trust the people to support the
government, are the governments that try to regulate private gun
owners.
Interesting note, Saddam made no effort to disarm his people. And
often walked around shaking hand with well armed Iraqi. The same ones
now fighting a well equipped invader. His standing army was defeated,
his people have not been.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 06:31:57 PM |
|
|
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> writes:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:42:44 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1175399986.663558.213030@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
This is the only criticism with merit. If the ACLU is going to claim to
defend the rights of Americans, it should defend them *all*, not pick
and choose which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't.
Actually, the ACLU does "believe" in the Second Amendment, including
the phrase, "A well regulated militia". It's the NRA that doesn't
believe in the Second Amendment as the NRA apparently wants that
phrase to be ignored.
No. They just want to know what part of the phrase "the right of THE
PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" the gun grabbers are having a problem
understanding.
Given the phrase, "A well regulated militia", it is obvious that the
idea was simply that the federal government doesn't get to keep all
of the weapons, but this does not preclude regulating ownership in
some way (e.g., requiring permits, banning felons from carrying
guns, etc.). It would prevent the federal government from, for
example, disarming a state's national guard. It would allow
one to require that anyone carrying a gun to pass a gun-safety
course.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 05:36:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:26:15 -0400 there was an Ancient John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
No. They just want to know what part of the phrase "the right of THE
PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" the gun grabbers are having a problem
understanding.
John, I own more firearms than some small town police departments, and
I have had it with gun owners pretending that the 2nd Amendment
doesn't exist except for that second clause. The entire thing reads:
"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."
Are you part of a well-regulated militia? Does your local government
know you own firearms, has certified you in their use, and can legally
draft you into service in times of crisis? That is a "well-regulated"
militia, a concept that died in this nation in the 1850s after the
Jayhawk War and other amusing frontier incidents.
I'm a NRA-certified firearms instructor, a range safety officer for
the Pink Pistols SF (try gay bashing one of us.) and have seen idiocy
on the range that makes me long for a federal firearms license so we
can weed out the morons who end up killing people because they never
learned how to clear a weapon or use a safety.
And before anyone starts, can the crap about guns being tools, or
people using them for target practice. Guns are designed as weapons.
Period, full stop, end of debate. Yes, you can kill someone with a
kitchen knife, but you can't cut a roast with a 9mm SigSauer. Guns
make killing easy. We need to make sure as possible that people buying
guns are who they say they are and are legally allowed to own firearms
(that means background checks and fingerprinting) and that the owners
know at least the basics of safe handling and storage. I'd also
require gun owners to carry liability insurance nationwide.
On the other hand, I strongly support concealed carry, the right to
use deadly force against home invaders, and private ownership of
military-style weapons. So go figure.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 08:11:55 PM |
|
|
In article <lcc0135vlm6tc48msleo2dhs1qsmniicm0@4ax.com>,
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:26:15 -0400 there was an Ancient John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
No. They just want to know what part of the phrase "the right of THE
PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" the gun grabbers are having a problem
understanding.
John, I own more firearms than some small town police departments, and
I have had it with gun owners pretending that the 2nd Amendment
doesn't exist except for that second clause. The entire thing reads:
"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."
Are you part of a well-regulated militia? Does your local government
know you own firearms, has certified you in their use, and can legally
draft you into service in times of crisis? That is a "well-regulated"
militia, a concept that died in this nation in the 1850s after the
Jayhawk War and other amusing frontier incidents.
The only problem with all that is that the introductory phrase doesn't
limit the rest of the sentence. It's an illustrative example of *why*
the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but it's
not the only determinative reason.
And before anyone starts, can the crap about guns being tools, or
people using them for target practice. Guns are designed as weapons.
Weird that there's an entire Olympic sport that uses guns and no one
ever gets killed...
Maybe you should can the crap and recognize that there are other
legitimate uses for a firearm besides harming people. (And even harming
people can be a legitimate use of a firearm under the right
circumstances.)
Period, full stop, end of debate.
Why? Because you say so?
Pardon me while I ignore your proclamations.
Yes, you can kill someone with a kitchen knife,
but you can't cut a roast with a 9mm SigSauer.
And you can't win an Olympic gold medal with a kitchen knife, either.
Guns make killing easy.
So do knives, compared to not having them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the ACLU |
01 Apr 2007 09:11:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:11:55 -0400 there was an Ancient BTR1701
<btr1702@ix.netcom.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Are you part of a well-regulated militia? Does your local government
know you own firearms, has certified you in their use, and can legally
draft you into service in times of crisis? That is a "well-regulated"
militia, a concept that died in this nation in the 1850s after the
Jayhawk War and other amusing frontier incidents.
The only problem with all that is that the introductory phrase doesn't
limit the rest of the sentence. It's an illustrative example of *why*
the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but it's
not the only determinative reason.
Then why do you never quote the full thing? The Amendment calls for a
well regulated militia, such as they had in the colonies.
And before anyone starts, can the crap about guns being tools, or
people using them for target practice. Guns are designed as weapons.
Weird that there's an entire Olympic sport that uses guns and no one
ever gets killed...
They also use bows and swords. So? Are you saying that if I took my
friend's .22 target pistol, loaded it, and shot you it wouldn't count?
Maybe you should can the crap and recognize that there are other
legitimate uses for a firearm besides harming people. (And even harming
people can be a legitimate use of a firearm under the right
circumstances.)
But what are they designed to do? Push a small piece of metal at
extremely high velocity to kill the man/animal in the gunner's sights.
Target shooting came later, and was an adjunct to the military
function of the weapon.
Period, full stop, end of debate.
Why? Because you say so?
Damn right. Guns are weapons. Designed to be weapons.
Pardon me while I ignore your proclamations.
You seem to enjoy ignoring reality, like the complete 2nd Amendment,
what firearms are, etc.
Yes, you can kill someone with a kitchen knife,
but you can't cut a roast with a 9mm SigSauer.
And you can't win an Olympic gold medal with a kitchen knife, either.
But you can with a sabre.
Guns make killing easy.
So do knives, compared to not having them.
Really? Ever been in a knife fight? With even a cheap 9mm I can stand
(or hide) way out of reach of my target and kill him before he can
touch me. With a knife, I have to get inside his reach. If he hits me
beofre I can stab him, I am up ***** creek. That, and unless you are
very lucky, stab/slash wounds are rarely immediately debilitating.
This is why most murders committed with knives involve multiple
wounds.. you need to keep chopping until you hit something vital or
your victim looses enough blood and passes out. Gunshot wounds tend
to be far more debilitating in the short term. A single bullet can
cause massive damage to several areas as it carves through the body.
Bones get broken, multiple blood vessels are broken, and a bullet,
well aimed, can puncture the heart. Try doing that with a knife.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
