Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Thanks Lisa!

Posted by: Jay at April 24, 2005 05:23 PM

Lisa
A well written post. Sending a petition to the ACLU to change their policy is nobel but fruitless. I will tell you why. The ACLU was started as the American League to Limit Armaments in 1914. In 1915 they changed their name to American Union Against Militarism. Founder Roger Baldwin, a member of the Communist Party USA, then changed direction and started the Civil Liberties Bureau in 1917. In 1919 he then changed the name to American Civil Liberties Union. People, who early on when the ACLU was an infant, that were fellow organizers and directors were CPUSA official Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Socialist Norman Thomas, Preacher Harry F. Ward, Louis Budenz of CPUSA fame. Louis Budenz offspring Kathy Budenz was part of the SLA group that Patty Hearst was involved with. Later on there was a whole cadre of heavy lefties that came on board. They represented education, diplomats, cabinet members, scientists, Unite States government officials, actors, media sorts, labor leaders and just about any other part of American life. I say all of that to see that from the beginning the ACLU was anything but what the name says. We have all seen case after case where they try to upset existing law practiced and enjoyed by a vast majority of the population. They have only one goal, which is not admitted or written, and that is to destroy the United States Constitution. Most of what I have written above comes from memory. I had to check a couple of encyclopedias to confirm. The second half is commentary.

Posted by: tom at April 24, 2005 05:46 PM

Well, I wrote the piece, and it probably is a fruitless petition, but my main goal is to expose the radical agenda of the ACLU. I’ve got a lot on their history at my site. I appreciate Lisa posting our Thursday blogburst over here.

They are out to destroy America…and we all need to stand up to stop them. I’ve got other petitions at my site…one asking Congress to get them off the taxpayer’s dole.

http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com
http://www.stoptheaclu.org

Posted by: Jay at April 24, 2005 06:12 PM

Jay
Your efforts and Lisa’s post are to be applauded. Keep up the work. My comment on fruit was just a commentary. I would be elated to say I was wrong. I would shout from the housetops that I was wrong. Unfortunately, their past will be re-lived in the future. I encourage you in the extreme to achieve something you desire in opposing the ACLU. I get them mixed up sometimes and call the Anti-Christ Lawyers United. My error.

Posted by: tom at April 24, 2005 06:23 PM

Lisa,

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.”

Can anyone see the contradiction between the Constitution’s actual text with that of the ACLU?

There’s a reason you see a non-existant contradiction. You changed the text of the second amendment! The actual text of the second amendment follows:

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.

What’s the difference? The last comma, before “shall not be infringed.” Does that matter? Absolutely, or maybe not.

Grammatically, the comma means that the second amendment cannot be parsed according to the rules of the English language. Grammatically, the best explanation is that “(a) well regulated militia” is what shouldn’t be infringed, but it’s not iron-clad. Since that’s not what the NRA wants, they and their supporters change the text of the constitution to suit their needs.

The arguments about the comma and the original meaning of the constitutional amendenment have waged for years. There are a lot of texts that support both interpretations. However, to assume the comma doesn’t exist and attack the ACLU for not supporting an intentionally altered version of the text is disingenuous, at best.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 24, 2005 06:40 PM

Lawnboy
The militia in our infancy as a nation was not an established military organization. It was each and every male old enough to carry a gun. Therefore, it must be concluded that the citizenry as a whole could carry arms without infringement. To me anyother interpretation is only inserting a spin or agenda or personal flavor or much of anything else. The language is straight forward much like the constitution as a whole is.

Posted by: tom at April 24, 2005 06:56 PM

Americans calling themselves patriots bashing one of the main organizations in America devoted to protecting their rights and liberties is always laughable. There are some positions the ACLU takes that the left hates, others that the right hates, and a few that the middle hate, and these are the very vocal ones we hear from a lot. But, the fact is, the ACLU has saved American citizen rights from being trampled on many an occasion and they still fight for even their critic’s rights to free speech and dissent and assembly.

Be careful what you wish for. America without an ACLU could turn into a very inhospitable place for freedom loving citizens.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 24, 2005 07:25 PM

It seems to me that the issue here is not if the ACLU is protecting everyone’s Rights, it is if they are protecting Rights others don’t want to exist. Gay Rights seems to be the focus now. The nonsense about Guns is just a distraction. It is Gay Rights that you really hate the ACLU for.

Posted by: Aldous at April 24, 2005 07:46 PM

The language is straight forward much like the constitution as a whole is.

That’s just not true. The text as written cannot be parsed according to English rules. Therefore, any interpretation is suspect, and many are plausible.

It’s far from straightforward, however much you might personally agree with one interpretation or another.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 24, 2005 07:46 PM

Lawnboy,
Great posts! Game, set, match. Sorry, Lisa. Inaccurately quoting the Second Amendment blows your article out of the water in terms of this particular issue. Much as we might wish otherwise, the Second Amendment is not well written, it is not clear, & it could be reasonably interpreted more than one way.
As for the ACLU, I’m curious; when the ACLU came to the defense of Rush Limbaugh’s rights, what did you think?

Posted by: phx8 at April 24, 2005 08:36 PM

They have only one goal, which is not admitted or written, and that is to destroy the United States Constitution.

If that is their goal, they have a VERY odd way of going about it. :)

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 24, 2005 09:25 PM

My memory could be wrong but I seem to remember that the ACLU was a communist-front organization openly set up by the Communist Party of the United States, hmmmmm, more than 75 years ago as an actually rather-clever attempt to subvert through reinterpretations the basic laws of the United States and use them against the nation that brought them into being and supported their continued existance. In other words, the ACLU used the courts instead of the legislatures to work their wily ways.

Sound familiar? “Activist judges”? Does that ring a bell?

Posted by: James Liddell at April 24, 2005 09:41 PM

Uh, yeah, James. That makes perfect sense. First you have free speech and the right to a fair trial, then the jackbooted Communist thugs send you to the gulag. A slippery slope indeed. ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 24, 2005 10:00 PM

You know, the “right to bear arms” doesn’t appropriate the right to have any weapon under the sun. The government would be quite within its rights to ban all civilian guns except for single-fire/bolt-action rifles.

Tom,

“It was each and every male old enough to carry a gun. Therefore, it must be concluded that the citizenry as a whole could carry arms without infringement.”

Exactly. So, every man, woman, and child old enough to carry an 1800’s rifle may do so. However, any gun that was invented after that time is hereby banned :P

Posted by: Zeek at April 24, 2005 10:12 PM

Our country won the Cold War with all the socialists, commies, and ACLU decisions you so hate present. This is America. There’s room for everybody. If these people break the law, fine, haul them into court, but this jack-booted thug talk about need to destroy liberal organizations is just un-American. Much as I dislike the Cato institute, I don’t recommend an offensive designed to marginalize it.

Truth is, we are fortunate nobody has the power to effectively destroy the ideological competition. If that were to occur, it would invite real radicals to take their place, people who would react to the repressions by extra-legal means. We avoided much of the Bullshit that made Europe and the rest of the world a bloody battleground by not making our dissenters go outside the law to make themselves heard.

Besides, this is a nation of laws. If the ACLU wins a case, or has one upheld, it is only because they’ve argued well enough to have their opinion accepted. Y’all use the tag activist judges, but that seems to be arbitrary to the construction the judges use. It seems to me, that as with the ACLU matter, some of you folks find it inconceivable somebody could agree with them. So you throw every insult you can their way, and suppose they had no reason to read the law like they did.

But these are often conservative judges you folks slander, people of moderate politics. It just seems like some people are not clear on the concept of disgreement in a Democracy.

If you want different results in court cases, change the laws. most of your cases of Judicial Activism actually involve straightforward interpretations of the law. With Sodomy cases, it was the fact that heterosexual couples were not being prosecuted for the same crime gays were. With Terri Schiavo, there was no legal basis, no new facts which were sufficient for even strict constructionists to merit a new cases.

Fact is, you simply don’t like what these people decided. I would think though, if you value our culture so much, you would not do it the harm of not respecting the rule of law, upon which the safety and stability of our nation is founded.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2005 10:31 PM

James,
You wrote that the ACLU wanted to “subvert through reinterpretations the basic laws of the United States and use them against the nation that brought them into being and supported their continued existance. In other words, the ACLU used the courts instead of the legislatures to work their wily ways.

Sound familiar? “Activist judges”? Does that ring a bell?”

What are you suggesting? That ‘activist judges’ seek to ‘reinterpret the basic laws and use them against the nation’? I can certainly understand anyone disagreeing with a judge on a particular issue. However, I really do not want suggest that you believe citizens at the highest level of our government seek to use the laws of the nation against the nation, because that would be disrespectful. Please clarify.

Posted by: phx8 at April 24, 2005 10:34 PM

Well, many of you think I’m out to destroy the ACLU. I just think many of their policies are led by blind ideology that takes in no account of consequence. They are an elitist, absolutist organization who only see one goal, and take no regards to the consequnces. If you take a look at my site you can see many radical ideas they seek to imlement. They seek legalizing all drugs, unregulated legalization of prostitution, they oppose tax exemptions for all churches. I don’t seek their destruction…they have the right to exist…but I really don’t think they should be funded with our tax dollars. They are a partisan organization…partisan to liberalism. Why should my tax dollars support them?

My site ask them for moral reform, not destruction…however, as we know they will never reform in such a manner, as they see no need for morals and hope to lead us in the direction of statism, there destruction may be the only option.

Posted by: Jay at April 24, 2005 10:47 PM

How do tax dollars support the ACLU? Isn’t it supported by members? What on earth are you talking about?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 24, 2005 11:07 PM

Jay,

“Well, many of you think I’m out to destroy the ACLU. I just think many of their policies are led by blind ideology that takes in no account of consequence.”

Sounds a lot like the neo-cons and the Bush administration eh?? :P

“They are a partisan organization…partisan to liberalism. Why should my tax dollars support them?”

Exactly, why should our tax dollars go to fund worthless-purely partisan- crap like that? So why don’t we get rid of the goddamned No Child Left Behind Act already?

“as [the ACLU] see no need for morals and hope to lead us in the direction of statism, there destruction may be the only option.”

Woah-Woah-wait-wait-wait…

Didn’t you JUST say, “I don’t seek their destruction…they have the right to exist”?

And didn’t you say, “My site ask them for moral reform, not destruction.”?

So, by your logic, we should destroy things that don’t conform to our own beliefs? OK, I’m going to catch flame for saying this, but that DOES sound like Nazism to me.

Posted by: Zeek at April 24, 2005 11:14 PM

Well, we ask them for moral reform…but if it ever came to the destruction of our democracy vs. their destruction…I’d choose them. And they are destroying our democracy with every step of their agenda.

And yes they are supported by our tax dollars. Every time they win a case.

WHEREAS, the American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU) has shown itself to be hostile to religious expression by private citizens and the civil rights of people of faith; and WHEREAS, the ACLU has declared war on the Boy Scouts of America, the military of the United States, Christmas displays, public buildings that display the Ten Commandments, and many other American traditions;

and WHEREAS, the United States Congress, roughly thirty years ago, passed a provision in United States Code section 1988 that requires taxpayers to pay attorneys in civil rights cases;

and WHEREAS, the ACLU has abused that law to make untold millions of dollars simply by suing boy scouts, school children, military academies, cities and towns, with the goal of punishing any who dare to exercise their First Amendment right to religious freedom and expression;

and WHEREAS, the vast majority of taxpayers do not want to be forced to pay the ACLU to sue their neighbors and friends in the ACLU’s efforts to strip America of all signs of faith;

and WHEREAS, the Establisment Clause of the First Amendment was not contemplated when USC section 1988 was passed;

THEREFORE, the People of the United States call upon their Congress to amend USC section 1988 so that hostile special interest groups such as the ACLU can no longer be granted taxpayer money to attack Americans and their institutions. We, The People, call upon our elected representatives to amend USC section 1988 so that fees are not awarded to the ACLU or any other plaintiff in Establisment Clause cases. We wish for the Free Expression Clause to implicate at least the same financial incentives as attacks upon faith currently have.

Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer’s Dole

Posted by: Jay at April 24, 2005 11:28 PM

LawnBoy… “The courts are awarding the ACLU millions of dollars in taxpayer paid ‘attorney fees awards’ authorized under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code Section 1988,” Cadmus added. “While the law was written with good intentions - to ensure legitimate victims of civil rights violations could obtain representation - it has been exploited by the ACLU in First Amendment ‘establishment of religion clause’ cases. ACLU profits from these cases at taxpayer expense. Title 42 must be amended to preclude this abuse.”
And this law is now used in all civil rights. cases.

Posted by: loboinok at April 24, 2005 11:37 PM

“My site ask them for moral reform, not destruction.”?
Thats how Jay feels… as a regular poster on his site, I think the ACLU needs to set up shop in a setting more to their liking…like Cuba or Russia.
If they like Socialism so much, go where Socialism is supported.

Posted by: loboinok at April 24, 2005 11:44 PM

Harold Ickes, who is one of the power brokers in the Democratic Party, is a member of ACLU. The ACLU is not a passive organization. The ACLU is an organization that has an agenda which is heavy to the left. They have a track record of handling cases that a majority of Americans are on the opposite side. Why is it after 6,000 years of recorded history that killing babies, sodomy, and removal of GOD from the public is a wise and proper thing to do? It is ironic that upon the passing of the Pope the flags were ordered to flown at half mast. Church state myth further left in the dark.

Posted by: tom at April 24, 2005 11:57 PM

Personally, I think the Conservatives want the ACLU gone so they could bring back Slavery and repeal Women’s Suffrage. Come on, Reds!!! You know its true!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 25, 2005 12:05 AM

I been asked to clarify and I will. But this will be my final post on this as I really don’t like this style of posting—sequential instead of tied together by links as in the Yahoo boards.

It is well documented that the early ACLU legal teams sought friendly judges and ideal cases to present the ACLU’s “point of view”. Obtaining a friendly judge is very easy as a national organization like the ACLU can bring its suit in any of a hundred places and can wait 10 years until that ideal case can be presented to a friendly judge by >>>working the court schedule. It’s done all the time by shifty lawyers. They watch for an opening on the court schedule of a judge they have good relations with—and don’t try to tell me that judges are impartial—many are but some are VERY political.

These friendly judges were elected or appointed in far-left districts as are common in Minnisota and Wisconsin or were appointed by a far-left governor or leftist president—such as FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ or Carter or Clinton.

Sooooooo, ACLU then gives to create law and the judge gets to be activist from the bench and when the USSC went left under Warren and as it is wavering now, what with Souter (who was supposed to be middle of the road) and Ginsburg, who is not a surprise at all at being leftist, the laws of the USA were twisted wildly out of what they had been written to provide and had been interpeted for centuries to mean.

It is interesting to note that Bennet Cerf of Randon House waited until the right moment on a very leftist judge’s schedule in NYC before deliberatively having “Lady Chatterly’s Lover” brought in on a passenger ship and seized as porno in NY harbor so that his company and the ACLU could get onto the court schedule of that leftist judge—and in the doing open up America to overt pornography. That was during the Warren Court era as you may recall.

In this instance, the incident was CREATED so that the RESULT could be obtained—namely a blow at American morality in the general populace. By the way, do you know what religion Cerf belonged to?

Posted by: James Liddell at April 25, 2005 12:11 AM

LawnBoy;phx8… Forty three states (86%) include a version of the Second Amendment in their own constitutions. As pointed out in the 1982 Senate report, some of these state constitutions pre-date our Federal constitution. If that isn’t bad enough, many of these states go beyond merely copying the U.S. Constitution’s wording, making it clear and plain, as in the case of Arizona:
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”
Ariz. Const. Art. 2, Sect. 26

This is taken straight from the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate.

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: “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.” In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing “for the common defense”.

No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [45]

It goes on and on and only gets better!

Joe Biden, Orrin Hatch and Edward Kennedy were some on this Committee.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 12:15 AM

What a tired and idiotic argument. This is the argument that Tim McVey and all of his ilitia allies have used over and over. The Second ammendment refers to each State’s right to organiza a militia under its auspices, and not to the right for anyone to own an assault rifle.

We have been down this road before. Please join the National Guard so you can exercise this 2nd ammendment right fully.
Julian

Posted by: Julian at April 25, 2005 12:21 AM

WHAT!!! JOIN THE NATIONAL GUARD!!! HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!

You offend every Timothy McVeigh in this country!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 25, 2005 12:57 AM

Heh. On a personal note, I support the right to own guns. I am trying to obtain the new .50 caliber rifle myself. I already have the magnesium-tipped bullets for it.

Does anybody in the Red Column know where I can obtain a .50 caliber rifle. For Hunting Purposes, ofcourse.

Posted by: Aldous at April 25, 2005 01:00 AM

Read the report for yourself slick!

http://hematite.com/dragon/senaterpt.html

Don’t expect it will do you much good, if it came from the framers’ mouths, you would believe what you want to believe.

Been in the U.S. marine corps and the U.S. Army. Fully exercised that right before, during and after.

Just what is an ‘assault rifle’ slick?

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 01:09 AM

You know, the “right to bear arms” doesn’t appropriate the right to have any weapon under the sun. The government would be quite within its rights to ban all civilian guns except for single-fire/bolt-action rifles.

What part of ‘arms’ and ‘infringed’ do you not understand?

Try interpretating your free speech rights using the same logic (or lack of) that you use in this right.
You are trying to divide what is clearly written.
Yet many free speech rights that you claim and enjoy are not spelled out in the First Amendment.
See if you can find that right to free ‘expression’ and right to privacy.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 01:26 AM

Jay, why do you insist on this one way street. If Bush, et.al. can use tax dollars to support religion of their choice, shouldn’t those opposed to the convergence of state and religion also be entitled to use tax dollars to fight for separation of church and state? What is with your double standards?

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 25, 2005 01:42 AM

The judges who make decisions after consulting with the EU!!! How offensive. This is The United States of America and we have a constitution that is not even remotely like any member of EU!!! Judges who are so insecure in their own knowledge of the constitution should be removed from the bench. Again they are part and parcel of the judicial revolution occuring in this country. Their basic knowledge of the constitution is either poor or they are purposely trying to subver.

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 01:43 AM

The government would be quite within its rights

That one almost got by me.
Just what rights do ‘The Government’ have?

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 02:30 AM

Does anybody in the Red Column know where I can obtain a .50 caliber rifle. For Hunting Purposes, ofcourse.

If you don’t have enough sense to know where to buy one, you don’t have enough sense to own one!

(moderator… this is not SPAM!)

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 02:36 AM

Lisa,

Well written and thought out post.

I just want to point out one aspect of the gun-control fight from my (more liberal) point of view and additionally, pose a question.

I don’t think there are many Democrats outside of New York City and Boston who feel that guns, at all times, should be banned. I grew up in the Midwest and have no problem with my neighbor, or anyone for that matter, owning a rifle or other type of hunting specific or protection necessary firearm. However, I, and I presume most left-leaning people, believe there is a definite line in the sand when determining the types of guns a person can own. We do not live in central Baghdad, Darfur, Bogotá ¯r any place remotely as dangerous, which leads to my question…

Where do you draw that line? Should I be able to go out and ostensibly give myself the “Contra” code for unlimited weapons and ammo (up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, b, a start) or does the government bear some responsibility in limiting the type of weapons available?

I really think determining where the line is, rather than debating the right to merely own a weapon, will finally lead to a solution the majority of people, Republican or Democrat, can agree upon.

Thanks. I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks.

Posted by: Ahmed A. Abonamah at April 25, 2005 03:19 AM

“What rights do “The Government” have?”
We are the government. We have the rights assured by the constitution that the authorities will not interfere with. The rights we have are the rights our creator bestowed upon us. All the constitution does is assure us that those operating the mechanics of government will not trample those rights nor allow other citizens to interfere with those rights.

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 03:22 AM

Tom,

You are close… However, legally the ‘rights bestowed upon us by the creator’ are not valid for a variety of reasons. But, the constitution spells out the rights that society has agreed upon. These rights can change, but require an agreed upon change to the constitution.

Since you can’t prove the existance of a ‘creator’ then I’m afraid he can not hold much sway in the legal or political running of a government that is founded to allow the free excercise of religion (or lack thereof) without government interference.

Unless you want to change the basic tennents of the US to become a theocracy, much like the old Britian empire or the current muslim states in the Middle East…

I personally think we’re a more tolerant people than that … as a whole. There are some very unreasonably intolerant people in this country surprisingly enough on both sides of the ‘aisle’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 25, 2005 03:31 AM

Rhinehold
Then you say there is an error in the Declaration of Independance when it says tht we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The founding fathers thught there is a creator.

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 03:54 AM

tom, Rhinehold will certainly provide his own erudite answer. However, may I point out that if one defines the universe as a creation, a creator is also defined. Whether that creator be a blackhole from another universe as string theory is pointing to, or whether it be a God as described in the Old Testament, is not specified. Which begs the question, why did the drafters not insist on the use of the word, GOD?

Some have argued precisely because the they did not want a deity to ordain the rights outlined in the Constitution according to a single religious text. Others have argued the word creator is synonamous with the word God.

But as others have pointed out, quite rightly I might add, the drafters were very specific where they wanted to be, and very vague where they wanted to be. This was by design, for I have not heard of any well-known critiques of the Constitution who postulate that it was a haphazardly drafted document without much care for the selection of wording. All evidence points to the contrary.

So, again, was the choice of the word creator used in the same way the philosopher Anselm used it, i.e. creation and creator are inseperable mirrors of each other, each defined by the other, or, was it used in the Biblical way? You see, there is a very religious interpretation and a more secular one. And both are valid, if one bears in mind the context of the writing of the document. Their greatest hurdle was for the document to acquire concensus, sufficient to create a new sovereign nation of law. And if concensus was the objective, then the language had to appeal to the greatest number throughout the land.

Hence, the deliberate vaguery of interpretation on the use of the word, creator.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 25, 2005 04:51 AM

Tom

We are the government. No, we are the people. The government is those elected by the people to represent us.
Our rights are outlined in the Constitution and the government’s responsiblity is to insure those rights.
It is our responsibility to protect and defend our rights from a tyrannical or oppressive government and the 2nd Amendment is the authority and means to carry that out.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 05:07 AM

Ahmed, very astute point. I am sure gun supporters here are not advocating that any American citizen who can build a suitcase nuclear weapon should have the right under the constitution to bear that kind of firearm. How about a cannon mounted to one’s rooftop? How about grenades, rifle propelled or otherwise?

Those strict adherents to the concept that the right to bear arms is a defense against an oppressive government, must logically argue that they have the right to bear as sophisticated weapons as the government has to wield against its people. A internal mutually assured destruction policy however, is not what most people would think was intended by the 2nd Amendment.

On the other hand, those of us who live in rural areas where police or sheriffs may be 10 to 20 minutes or more away, believe we absolutely have the right to keep arms for self-defense since authorities are incapable of rapid response in such areas of the country. But, that argument does not logically extend to bearing those same arms in town where we may choose to do business, where police response time is much more immediate.

But, that raises the question, is one safer in the towns streets than one is at home? Statistically speaking the answer is no. One increases one’s danger by entering public areas and leaving one’s residence. So, should not our right to self-defense at home extend even more so to public places?

You are absolutely right, we should be discussing as a nation, when and where and what kinds of self-defense, and recreational weapons folks are entitled to, rather than the extreme black and white extremes of whether or not the bearing of weapons should be legal. Afterall, hands and feet are the most basic weapons of all and we all have them.

Which leads to the worn question, if criminals have guns why should not law abiding citizens have them as well? No one but true Christians would choose to turn the other cheek when confronted by an armed assailant. Down in my Republican neck of the woods, turn the other cheekers are few and far-in-between. Our Bible Belt Texan Republican state was one of the first to permit concealed weapon citizen permits.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 25, 2005 05:09 AM

David

And if concensus was the objective, then the language had to appeal to the greatest number throughout the land.

And what was the Religious persuasion of the greatest number?

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 05:16 AM

It is interesting to note that Bennet Cerf of Randon House waited until the right moment on a very leftist judge’s schedule in NYC before deliberatively having “Lady Chatterly’s Lover” brought in on a passenger ship and seized as porno in NY harbor so that his company and the ACLU could get onto the court schedule of that leftist judge—and in the doing open up America to overt pornography.

Bennett Cerf is my new hero. They should dedicate an episode of South Park to him. Actually, every fourteen-year-old boy in America should have Bennett’s picture on his wall.

By the way, do you know what religion Cerf belonged to?

I looked it up. He was Jewish. Paranoia and anti-Semitism go so well together.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 25, 2005 06:43 AM

David

You are absolutely right, we should be discussing as a nation, when and where and what kinds of self-defense, and recreational weapons folks are entitled to,

When: since the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Where: The USA.
What: conventional arms.

READ the 2nd Amendment! I don’t care whether or not you agree with it and I don’t care whether or not you like it.
Its there, its a Constitutional Right same as the other nine.
The Supreme Court has avoided ruling on a 2nd Amendment case every chance it gets, because they know that the evidence is overwhelming.

GRA’s are not going to give an inch on this because they see what liberals have done with our other rights such as free speech. Free speech is free speech unless they don’t like it, then its hate speech.

Naw… ya’ll just go ahead a draw your silly little lines in the sand and have your ludicrous debates about ‘suitcase nukes’ and ‘internal mutually assured destruction’ and leave reality to the Statesman and Patriots.

I’d almost be willing to bet you’re from Austin.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 06:43 AM

David, I definitely see where you are coming from. Someone living in the expansive prairies of Kansas, miles away from the nearest home, let alone police officer, may need a firearm in their home for protesction; whereas, someone living on Lincoln Park Ave. in Chicago does not. And again, I am not hear to denounce the 2nd Amendment. It was important to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the other Framers, though I am concerned with its application. I see nothing wrong with that family from Kansas being able to own a hand-gun or rifle. I do have a problem with them, or anyone else being able to buy “assault weapon”. As I said before, no one in this country lives in an environment devoid of the most basic aspects of law and order. No one has to be John Rambo.

With that said, we cannot make laws on the national level that deliniate different requirements for rural and urban citizens. National policy must be unifrom and applicable to all. Thus, logically, one would first think this should strictly be a state issue, and you would partially right to do so. States definitely have their rights in this issue - Montana definitely has different needs and political realities than Illinois. Even so, I do believe the Federal Government has the power AND responsibility to set the boundaries within which the states can legally operate. And I am not talking about “suitcase nukes” or “mutually assured destruction” ala the cold war, I am talking about eradicating the availability of automatic assault weapons. The military needs those, not the president of the local hunters’ lodge.

Posted by: Ahmed A. Abonamah at April 25, 2005 09:19 AM

and WHEREAS, the United States Congress, roughly thirty years ago, passed a provision in United States Code section 1988 that requires taxpayers to pay attorneys in civil rights cases;

You mean the ACLU provides a difficult, Constitutionally mandated service to society and expect to be compensated for it? What brutes!! How dare they!! I think we need to run them off the land with pitchforks!!

Oh brother…

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 09:25 AM

WHEREAS, the American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU) has shown itself to be hostile to religious expression by private citizens and the civil rights of people of faith;

You know, your proposition might have a lot more weight if you built up your case with whereas clauses based on fact (that’s the purpose of a whereas clause). In fact, the ACLU has many times shown itself to be a defender of religious expression. Your hatred of them is based on a false premise.

The ACLU’s goal is to protect the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment. Sometimes that means the ACLU opposes religious actions, and sometimes that means the ACLU supports religious actions.

Here are some examples of the latter:

ACLU supports baptisms in parks.

ACLU fights to keep a church from being closed.

ACLU worked with JERRY FALWELL to make sure churches can incorporate.

ACLU protects a Native American’s right to practice his religion in jail.

The ACLU is not anti-religious. Although one might disagree with a particular stand the ACLU takes, it’s really just a group protecting our rights.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 09:34 AM

Lawnboy
The ACLU does not provide a constitutionally mandated service. There is not such a thing as a constitutionally mandated service on any subject.

loboinok
Was President Lincoln incorrect in his Gettysburg Address when he said “government of the people, by the people and for the people”? We are the government. We elect representatives to carry out our wishes, which seldom get done. We elect a president to be the administrator.

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 09:54 AM

tom,

Check out the end of the sixth amendment: …and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

If you prefer different terminology than “constitutionally mandated service,” feel free to substitute.

My point stands.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 10:27 AM

A mandated service and assuring that a person has assistance of cousel for his defense are as different as peas and corn.

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 10:34 AM

loboinok, Lisa, and others,

You are probably right that the intent of the 2nd amendment was not to have the final comma in there to confuse things. However, the comma is there. So, what does that mean? What is the proper course when the spirit of an amendment (the right to bear arms shall not be infringed) disagrees with the letter of the amendment (a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed)?

Which wins in a fight between the letter and the spirit? The NRA and you guys support the spirit, and the ACLU and the Supreme Court support the letter. Which is right? I don’t know. I think both sides can be inconsistent on it (liberals tend to see an expanded view of the 1st amendment beyond the text to the inferred intent, and conservatives tend to focus on the letter of the 1st amendment).

Either way, it’s inaccurate and misleading to accuse the ACLU of not supporting the constitution because they support interpreting what the second amendment actually says.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 10:35 AM

tom,

What are you talking about? The constitution mandates that defendents have counsel. The ACLU is compensated for providing this required service. What distinction are you drawing?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 10:39 AM

When the law was passed Lawn Boy, it was intended to protect the little people, those who couldn’t afford all the attorney’s fees to fight for their civil rights. The ACLU has turned it on its head and use it’s leverage to pick on small schools with threatening letters. I wouldn’t advocate pitchforks, but I do think we need to go after them, and expose them. They will not even release their policy guide to the public…what have they go to hide?

Posted by: Jay at April 25, 2005 10:43 AM

I think the ACLU needs to set up shop in a setting more to their liking…like Cuba or Russia. If they like Socialism so much, go where Socialism is supported.

red-bait Pronunciation Key (rdbt)
tr.v. red-bait-ed, red-bait-ing, red-baits

To accuse, denounce, or attack (a person, for example) as a Socialist, a Communist, or a Communist sympathizer. This tactic often indicates an inherent weakness in the argument being presented.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 10:44 AM

what have they go to hide?

Ummm… internal priorities and strategies in a highly combatative environment? I’m sure that every similar organization on the right keeps some of their important documents private. You really have a paranoia about some hidden conspiracy, don’t you?

You can get the policies and explanations on the website. There’s nothing shocking about their not having a specific piece of paper.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 10:48 AM

Lawnboy
May I try to be more elementary. A mandate is an order. The 6th amendment only assures that the grived party be allowed to have counsel. It does not mandate counsel. Some people prefer not to have counsel. They also have that right.

Now, about the ACLU. As I have posted above, the beginnng of the ACLU had extensive communist party ties. The communist party never had loyalty to or preservation of this republic. They only wanted to have the great and glorious and free USA merged with the USSR. Their ideas were and are solialist in nature. They could care less about the individual and his/her rights as an american citizen.

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 11:07 AM

This debate has cost the Dem. party more votes in the past 20-30 yrs. than any other single issue.

Most of the Dem base don’t want to ban sporting guns or target guns. The problem lies with the leadership of the party that does want them all banned.

Can anyone on the blue team define wtf a (so called) assult weapon is ?

Automatic weapons have been banned since the 30’s.
Is it just guns that look scarey to you?

Calif. just banned 50 cal. rifles, smooth move exlax, wtf is the most popular muzzeloading rifles used for hunting?…50-58 cal.

I’ve heard some say they want the “new powerfull weapons” banned, an old 45/70 sharps will kill anything that walks,crawls,or flys on earth!
The garbage guns you wish to ban, are just that when it comes to power, the problem is the dinkshits that write those type of laws to regulate them, write them in such a way that would ban many, or most sporting arms.

If they wish to ban all guns,
say so,just don’t piss on someones leg and say its raining.

If an honest gunowner/sportsman wanted to cancel your ticket, they would shoot you deadcenter in the punkin at 500yds with a varmit rifle!

I have an idea, lets enforce the laws on the books now and ban slimeballs that use guns in crime.

Posted by: Beagle at April 25, 2005 11:18 AM

May I try to be more elementary. A mandate is an order. The 6th amendment only assures that the grived party be allowed to have counsel. It does not mandate counsel. Some people prefer not to have counsel. They also have that right.

Here’s the relevant text:

the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This is understood to mandate that they be allowed to have counsel and that counsel be provided if the defendent cannot afford one.

They could care less about the individual and his/her rights as an american citizen.

Are you talking about the Communist party or the ACLU in this sentence? If you are talking about the ACLU, you’re dead wrong.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 11:25 AM

communist, ACLU, socialist, totalitarian, there is no difference. The end is the same. A communist does not start an organization to protect their enemy.

Back to guns. There are many stats about gun ownership. One of the consistent ones is that where legal ownership of arms is present and ownership is high in numbers, then crime is lower. This is consistent from north to south and east to west, urban and rural. Of course there are the Morton Groves and others where ownership is sharply restricted. Crime numbers are above average there also.

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 11:33 AM

Lawnboy:
“You mean the ACLU provides a difficult, Constitutionally mandated service to society and expect to be compensated for it? What brutes!! How dare they!! I think we need to run them off the land with pitchforks!!”

Nah, that’s how it was BEFORE the ACLU — when racial segregation through violence was totally commonplace. And sex discrimination. And deportation on the flimsiest of excuses for politically active American citizens of foreign birth. And when American born citizens could rot in jail for years, simply for handing out a few sheets of political literature.
In fact, before the founding of the ACLU, the Supreme Court had never ruled ON A SINGLE SOLITARY FIRST AMENDMENT CASE, EVER.
It really kills me how so many people will talk out of their asses and chronically whine about the ACLU — that is, until they actually need them for their own defense. Then they’re really glad that the ACLU is completely non-partisan and will represent ANYONE who is an American citizen — regardless of skin color or country of origin, whether religious or not religious, able or disabled, poor or rich, straight or gay.
As a card carrying member since 1986, sometimes I honestly wonder why they continue to bother defending these rightwingers on their Constitutional issues — and winning them their cases, since all they get for doing so is to have bullsh*t abuse heaped upon them for no bloody reason whatsoever.

Hey btw, lawnboy… way to go!
I think you actually gutted this article with your very first post!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 25, 2005 11:37 AM

communist, ACLU, socialist, totalitarian, there is no difference.

Logic, facts, insinuations, slander, there is no difference.

The ACLU may have roots in the Communist party, but that’s not what they are today. The ACLU fights against too much state control (totalitarianism) every day. Socialism is a different ideology than communism. Totalitarianism is a way of governing that can happen under ideologies that are virulently anti-communist (see the Nazis).

When you can’t separate four completely different concepts, you show a complete disregard for logic and an utter lack of respect for the debate itself.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 12:02 PM

BTW, here is the stated mission of the ACLU:

• Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Hardly anti-American totalitarian ideology.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 12:06 PM

Ahmed-

You are getting close to the position of many gun owners and gun rights supporters like me. Gun control is primarily a State and more importantly a local issue. My local Sherrif’s office, for example, is where I took my concealed weapon’s course; they support the population taking these courses and wish that more would apply for the permits. Other police and law enforcement offices in this country, especially in urban areas, probably have a different outlook. That’s why national legislation makes little sense and why you end up, at the national level, with crap like the Brady Bill.

And if your goal is to eradicate the availability of automatic assault weapons, then the federal government did that back in 1934 with the original National Firarms Act (modified in 1968 by the Gun Control Act). If you don’t have a Class III license and you possess automatic weapons then you are already in violation of the law and are facing a ten year sentence.

Aldous-

As for the .50’s I have a Spencer Carbine that was made in 1864. It’s a .50. It’s not as sexy as the Barrett 82A1 (which is legal in all but CA) that I think you are referring to, but you would be banning it just the same. While I admit I do not have the figures for deaths each year from the Barrett (I don’t think there has been any in the U.S.) you would be better off banning long neck bottles in bars if you were just interested in saving lives.

Posted by: George in SC at April 25, 2005 12:14 PM

Lawnboy,

The first thing the nazis did was to ban private ownership of guns.

If the hole for your arguement isn’t deep enough, I’ll take up a collection for a new shovel.

Posted by: Beagle at April 25, 2005 12:20 PM

Beagle,

What hole? If you think I’m in error, tell me where, but don’t try to scare me with an irrelevant invocation of Godwin’s law.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 12:30 PM

socialists and communists are different? Hardly. Nazis and communists both use socialist in their literature and description of their mission. And what is a socialist? Without going thru all 99 points they are anti-freedom and pro-slavery. It’s not how they commit the crime; it’s that the crime was committed. All the communist and socialist ruling groups must my their very nature do crimes to assure and continue their power. There is no spin here. Now, when did the ACLU have a change in heart from socialist/communist influence? Never!!!

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 12:45 PM

For whatever reason, this is a fact: Many of the people that ardently support the 2nd Amendment often couldn’t care less about thes rest of the bill of rights, and the people that ardently support freedom of speech and religion, limits on search & seizure, limits on cruel and unusual punishments, due process for everyone - the rest of the bill of rights, that is - could care less about the 2nd Amendment. Some even say silly things like, “gee, I’m glad there are restrictions on bearing arms, especially shoulder-launched surface-to-aim missles.”

So, Lisa, it makes perfect sense that there are two organizations, and depending on your views, you can donate time or money to the ACLU, the NRA, both, or neither. Or start your own National Rifle and Civil Liberties association and see who joins, no one’s stopping you.

More seriously - the ACLU works under the principle that rights are first infringed at the fringes of society…for people that aren’t supported by the bulk of the population. But if those rights aren’t defended everywhere, they will cease to exist. So they end up defending a bunch of crackpot, litigating for the rights of Nazi’s to assemble here, and for the privacy rights of gays there. Unfortunate, but precedents get set no matter who the defendent’s are.

A lot of you Red-Team members like the idea of having guns, ostensibly to protect you from a hostile government. Well, I don’t trust the government any more than you do. But the first line of defense against any particular government taking over isn’t guns: it is the rule of law, a judiciary that’s not in anyone’s pocket, and lawyers that are willing to go to bat whenever ANYONE’s rights are being taken away. And that’s what the ACLU is all about.

Posted by: William Cohen at April 25, 2005 12:56 PM

tom,

I’m not sure how to respond. You’re right that there’s an ideological link between socialists and communists, but there’s a difference. I suggest you read up on it and learn that there are many types of Socialism that don’t follow Marx or Lenin. And the Nazis use of “National Socialist” is about as relevant to socialism as Democracy is relevant to the Lao People’s Democratic Republic - it’s misleading and unimportant.

Besides, many western governments in Europe have been Socialist in a manner completely independent of communism or totalitarianism. They gained and maintained their power legally and gave it up peacefully if the next election called for it. Your attacks are completely ignorant of these facts.

So, let me know when you have a valid point that can be backed up by reasoned argument instead of senseless rants that accuse the ACLU of being totalitarian, communist criminals despite the fact that every part of that accusation is baseless.

Then we might have something to talk about.

All socialists are by nature criminals… ACLU supports the overthrow of the government by defending the constitution… Where do they come up with this stuff?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 12:59 PM

Lawnboy
I have spent my adult years studying history. I have subscribed to many, many publications in the help of learning about organizations, individuals, beliefs, principles, links and on and on. I have subscribed to the Daily Worker. I have subscribed to News In Review. I have subscribed to Commonweal. The list goes on ad nauseam. I have learned much. So what more do you think I should learn. I am in my twilight years and I can keep my focus very well. I will continue to fight the good fight. Thank you

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 01:10 PM

tom,

If you have read so much and understood it and your statements are accurate, then you should be able to show me where Tony Blair is pro-slavery. Or show me how Gerhard Schroder and Willy Brandt followed their nature to “do crimes to assure and continue their power.” Or show that Francois Mitterrand was totalitarian. Or show anything about the current ACLU that is related to these ideologies (not talking about the personalities 85 years ago). Or show that Communism==Socialism==Totalitarianism==ACLU.

You talk a very angry game, but you haven’t backed up any of your accusation with evidence. It’s easy to toss around angry words, but that doesn’t get you very far in my book.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 01:24 PM

So, I gather the ACLU thinks we need a constitutional amendment for the armed forces to have guns. Typical of this organization’s TwistSpeak to get what they want out of any text……

Posted by: Mike at April 25, 2005 01:34 PM

Lawnboy,

I wasn’t trying to scare you in any way, I have no idea who Godwin is, the mayor of paduca Kentuckey?
Debate the 2nd amendment without a bunch of tangents or hiperbole, you’ll get to the root of what my comments were about, or you can stamp your lil feet and go off to something else.

Posted by: Beagle at April 25, 2005 02:03 PM

Wow! This board is almost justification for eugenics!
LawnBoy (thanks for the Godwin reminder) said it best: “When you can’t separate four completely different concepts, you show a complete disregard for logic and an utter lack of respect for the debate itself.”
The right to bear arms was written when nearly no one owned a firearm. Look at last will and testaments from that era, guns were generally too expensive to buy and keep. The 2nd was written because it was felt that if the gov’t (read “tyranical monarchy”) banned guns, then how would someone fight such a repressive gov’t (read that as “Bush 43”).
Also, the ACLU does not advocate the banning of guns. It’s official position is:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe 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.

BTW: Jay complained about tax dollars supporting the ACLU. There are no tax dollars going to the ACLU, not even the hypotheticals not summarily above. Somewhat different than who Bush pays off; Halliburton, J Gannon, et. al.

Ah well… too much BS to debunk to go after it all. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Dave at April 25, 2005 02:10 PM

My last response on this posting. Lawnboy, you have repeatedly sought to connect anger with my comments. Nyet, Nana, Nope, NO! You have to understand ones heart. You don’t understand my heart any better than my wife does. I am one of a kind. There are a lot of postings that you can maybe put the anger label on. Thirty years ago you might have been able to pin that on me. Today I am a different person with a small amout of wisdom, a large amount of patience and tolerance, and a peace that is hard for most people to understand. Godspeed to the next posting.

Posted by: tom at April 25, 2005 02:20 PM

I wasn’t trying to scare you in any way, I have no idea who Godwin is, the mayor of paduca Kentuckey?

I gave you a link when I mentioned Godwin’s law. Here it is again.

Debate the 2nd amendment without a bunch of tangents or hiperbole, you’ll get to the root of what my comments were about, or you can stamp your lil feet and go off to something else.

I have no idea what I’m supposed to take from that.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 02:26 PM

Lawnboy,

What you might take from that, I really don’t care about Godwins law, I thought the debate was about the 2nd amendment and the laws governing that?
If Godwins law means avoid facts, add lots of hyperbole and spin, you may understand why I could give a crap less about that in a debate about the 2nd amendment and gun control.

If those on the left( i’m guessing you are) want to ban guns, just say so, no need to beat around the bush, everyone knows that by now.

I respect anyone that can stand by their views, even if their party is going down the toilet because of it.

Posted by: Beagle at April 25, 2005 04:04 PM

Don’t know the overall definition of an assault rifle brother ‘slick.’ I do not think the average citizen has a use for say a chinese assault rifle, m-16’s, ak-47 weapons, those slick little automaric repeating uzzi weapons. These are favorite guns for the gang elements, the new little automatic repeaters. Say for example, the guns used at the Columbine massacre, here in my local state of Colorado.

As far as the ACLU strawman you create. Silly goose, the Pilgrims lived here before our nation was founded. It was a lawless state except for the rules eacj community created, and it was not The United States of America.

I have no major problem with your keeping a .38 or other, revolver, or automatic. Or say your shotgun (not sawed off) for hunting, or the 30odd rifle, and so on. I will ignore the statistics that show that most often than not these weapons are turned against the householder. I will ignore the number of children killes by these weapons at home. Go hunt and exercise that fun activity.

If you are in the service, of course, not only are you given the right but the obligation to bear arms. As long as the conflict TRULY protects our freedom, I support that also.

This is not to say that one thinks owning these guns is smart, but just that what one personally is opposed to, again, are weapons specifically designed for mass murder.

As for the straw man you set up about the ACLU. I will tell you one thing, they have often been attacked for defending unpopular groups: they have defended Nazis when it came to protecting free speech for all of us, they have protected them unpopular homeeesexuels. One thing too, I will defend to the death your right to make these comments, and the ACLU will also.

Posted by: Julito at April 25, 2005 04:09 PM

Great post Lisa.
I don’t care for the NRA but it’s still nice to read facts on here every now and again.
Here’s what I’ve learned from the replies:
You have to read deep into a comma to make the 2nd mean what you want it to and you can ADD words to the Constitution to make it mean what you want it to, “seperation of church and state.”
Twist it until it means what you want it to or until the populace gets tired and gives in to you.
The hell with what it really means and the hell with individual freedoms.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2005 04:20 PM

“One thing too, I will defend to the death your right to make these comments, and the ACLU will also”

Therein lies the problem with much of the left.
You are willing to pick and choose which rights you will “defend to the death.” That is not how it should work.
We ALL should be willing to “defend to the death” each and every one of our rights, not just the ones YOU agree with.
Instead of trying bullsh*& us, the aclu needs to be honest and say, “we do not support the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.”
Supporting the aclu is no different than burning the US Constitution because it doesn’t say what you WANT it to say.
Each and EVERY right is worth defending. The only difference with the 2nd is that without it, the others would be gone.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2005 04:31 PM

What you might take from that, I really don’t care about Godwins law, I thought the debate was about the 2nd amendment and the laws governing that?

The reason I brought up Godwin’s law is that the first comment you addressed towards me had no content except trying to equate anti-NRA groups with Nazis and telling me I’m wrong (without specifying how). When your only content is to avoid the current conversation and bring in the Nazis, I think it was reasonable to invoke Godwin to to tell you that you’re the one distracting from the conversation.

How am I supposed to build a substantive conversation on being told that I’m wrong and that people you presume to agree with me are like Nazis?

If Godwins law means avoid facts, add lots of hyperbole and spin

Yes, it means that you were avoiding facts for hyperbole and spin.

If those on the left( i’m guessing you are) want to ban guns, just say so, no need to beat around the bush, everyone knows that by now.

Yes, I’m on the left for the most part. I’m no fan of guns, and I personally wouldn’t mind if they had never found their way into civilian and criminal hands, but I haven’t spent any energy on banning them; there’s no chance the 2nd Amendment (whatever it actually means) will be revoked, so I don’t worry about it.

However, my arguments on this thread so far have been about the ACLU, for the most part, and how their actions towards the 2nd Amendment are not hypocritical. Why do you insist I drop defending the ACLU and debate the 2nd Amendment? My arguments defending the ACLU and its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are strongly on topic, so what’s the harm?

I’m still waiting to be told what the hole in my “arguement” is.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 04:32 PM

loboinok,

“It is our responsibility to protect and defend our rights from a tyrannical or oppressive government and the 2nd Amendment is the authority and means to carry that out.”

Great! So you would support an armed coup in the U.S.? Cuz I know a lot of liberals gearing to do just that!

beagle,

“The first thing the nazis did was to ban private ownership of guns.”

Well, the banning of the guns themselves were probably more for the sake of suppressing Jews. If you want to use a better example it would be China, where it is illegal to have just about any kind of gun. It is an extremely rare event to here of people shot or someone robbing with a gun, and considering China’s population I would say that is impressive.

To everyone: about 3 in 5 police that are shot and killed criminally are shot by handguns. (interpret this as you wish)

The guns in the 1700’s-1800’s were generally so inaccurate and slow firing (about four rounds per minute) that it would be impossible to cause the sort of killing sprees that people these days can (Redlake and Columbine could never have happened in the 1800s). No matter what you believe, the times have changed. The 2nd Ammendment is no longer as relevant as it was when it was first written and for that matter, no longer has the same meaning. In other words, the guns and the law have been changing independently of one another.

It is truly conservative and naive to think the 2nd ammendment needs no changes.

Posted by: Zeek at April 25, 2005 04:57 PM

To accuse, denounce, or attack (a person, for example) as a Socialist, a Communist, or a Communist sympathizer. This tactic often indicates an inherent weakness in the argument being presented.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

If they say they are Socialists, I say they are Socialists and you say they are not… what does that indicate to you?

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 05:17 PM

If they say they are Socialists

Can you back up this claim?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 05:20 PM

lawnBoy

and the ACLU and the Supreme Court support the letter.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment refers to individual right a number of times since their 1939 Miller case and I have given you the URL for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearings that clearly spells out their findings.

If you choose to ignore these simple facts then do so.
Those here who are seeking a answer and truth will find it and those who are interested in doggedly maintaining their position, regardless, will do that.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 05:37 PM

loboinok,

SCOTUS didn’t throw out the 1939 ruling, so it could be stated that they support both interpretations. The Senate Committee findings are irrelevant to what SCOTUS accepts, so why divert?

I don’t know what position you think I’m doggedly maintaining. I’ve even acknowledged that the intent is probably what you think it was (although the letter is different).

You’re doggedly maintaining that the ACLU are socialists despite a lack of evidence. Have you seen a mirror lately?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 05:42 PM

BTW, here is the stated mission of the ACLU:

We are not concerned with their STATED mission! We are concerned with their ACTUAL mission!

Start paying attention to what they are doing and less to what they are saying!

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 05:56 PM

loboinok,

We are not concerned with their STATED mission! We are concerned with their ACTUAL mission!

So, I have a choice. I could accept the self-definition of a group long in the public eye that has been working tirelessly for decades to support the constitution (particularly the 1st amendment), even when unpopular. Or, I could accept the definition given by you, a complete stranger who presents wild accusations without supporting them.

Sorry, it’s not a close call.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 06:02 PM

William

this is a fact: Many of the people that ardently support the 2nd Amendment often couldn’t care less about thes rest of the bill of rights,

That is crap not fact, most any GRA will tell you flat out that the 2nd Amendment provides the means to protect the rest of our rights.

You are very naive.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 06:07 PM

Zeek

Great! So you would support an armed coup in the U.S.? Cuz I know a lot of liberals gearing to do just that!

When or IF the government were to declare Martial Law and suspend the Constitution, the general population that is armed, will take up arms and there will be no left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative.

Liberals gearing up for a coup will meet not only government resistance but a heavily armed people.

In effect they will be committing suicide, IMO.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 06:36 PM

Zeek

The 2nd Ammendment is no longer as relevant as it was when it was first written and for that matter, no longer has the same meaning. In other words, the guns and the law have been changing independently of one another.

Then by that logic… we need to take another look at free speech because they didn’t have rampant porn and the level of obscenity that we have today. I mean why would they include that in our Constitutional right to free speech when it wasn’t a concern of their time?

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 06:45 PM

loboinok,

“Then by that logic… we need to take another look at free speech because they didn’t have rampant porn and the level of obscenity that we have today.”

What the hell? How is porn or obscenity free speech?

“I mean why would they include that in our Constitutional right to free speech when it wasn’t a concern of their time?”

Exactly, guns weren’t, as you said, a concern of their time. Therefore, the 2nd Ammendment is grossly archaic and needs to be changed to fit modern times. The flaw with your free speech analogy is that free speech doesn’t change over time. Guns, on the other hand, have become far more deadly.

“Liberals gearing up for a coup will meet not only government resistance but a heavily armed people.”

Wait, this sounds like you’re admitting a civilian militia doesn’t really have a chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government. Hey! You are! So wtf do we need guns for then? Protecting ourselves from animals? Don’t make me laugh…

On Socialism:

The U.S. has several very large Socialist institutions, you know that right, loboinok? To name a few: Social Security, public education, medicare, and medicaid. Since you seem so anti-Socialist, you must be against all these things, right?

Posted by: Zeek at April 25, 2005 06:56 PM

LawnBoy

Can you back up this claim?

The ACLU’s founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.” (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)

Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:

*

the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
*

the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as “free speech” (Policy 4);
*

the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
*

the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
*

the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
*

opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
*

opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
*

opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
*

opposition of parental choice in children’s education (Policy 80)

— not to mention the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).

George Grant, author of “Trial and Error,” puts the ACLU’s annual budget (1993) at $14 MILLION (FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS) - much of which is “SUPPLIED BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER through the Federal program mandated by the Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fee Awards Act of 1976. If the ACLU wins a case that involves a public institution, for instance, the organization collects the full legal fees of its attorneys even though those attorneys offered their services pro bono (without charge).

Roger Nash Baldwin - the founding, long time, director of ACLU. Born to wealth, at the time of the founding, he was deeply involved in the communist movement. As late as 1935, he gave a speech stating that his political vision was communist.

Norman Thomas - a Presbyterian minister and radical socialist who advocated the total abolition of capitalism. He was also a eugenicist who warned against the excessive reproduction of undesirables. Thomas was a six time Socialist Party presidential candidate.

John Haynes Holmes - a Unitarian minister, a pacifist, socialist and also a founder of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Crystal Eastman - pacifist, socialist and feminist. She had been active as a supporter of the radical International Workers of the World (I.W.W.), a radical group with very strong ties to communism.

Helen Keller - a communist. during the early 1920s, she wrote and spoke flatteringly about the two competing and emerging German variations of socialism, the national socialism of Adolf Hitler and international revolutionary socialism, or communism.

Elizabeth Flynn Gurley - a communist, she later became chairman of CPUSA.

John Dewey - radical socialist educator who believed that the function of the educational system was to train future agents for the goals of the state. His educational theories dominate our system today.

A. J. Muste - at the time, a communist who was committed to revolutionary politics. He later later became a Christian pacifist after a trip to the Soviet Union and a meeting with Leon Trotsky. Many associates maintained though that he never completely abandoned his attachment to Marxism.

Harry F. Ward - a lifetime communist, he authored “Soviet Democracy” and “Soviet Spirit,” two pro-Communist books.

Albert DeSilver - radical socialist attorney who had worked with the I.W.W. He willed his entire fortune to ACLU.

This is the cast of characters; in a steering committee of five, one communist, two socialists and three pacifists. In a random selection of eleven additional members, four communists, five radical socialists, two pacifists, two feminists and two social reformers. It’s not difficult to discern an ideologic tilt to the organization.

And it got worse afterwards. By the 1940s, so many ACLU members were communists and members of other radical and communist organizations that Roger Baldwin grew alarmed at the attention that American security agencies were focusing on it. Aided by others, such as Norman Thomas, he led a purge of communists from the top leadership.

It was indeed unfortunate that pacifists had to make common cause with communists and others at the time because their movement was forever tainted by it. Many communists agitated for pacifism to facilitate communist insurgencies across the world. For them it was a means to the end of accomplishing their Nirvana, the total subjugation of humanity to the communist jackboot.

Check out: http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/04/aclnot.html

I could go on and on, the net is saturated with information. ( Both accurate nad inaccurate)

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 07:49 PM

Exactly, guns weren’t, as you said, a concern of their time.

I said nothing of the sort.
Guns were a concern… they carried guns at most all times and were later required BY LAW to carry guns. They carried them on the farms and in their communities, to and from where ever they went INCLUDING Church. Guns were central to their society , protection and survival.

Wait, this sounds like you’re admitting a civilian militia doesn’t really have a chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government

I said LIBERALS of which was spoken.
I said nothing about a civilian militia.
And as far as haveing a chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government… you would have to take several factors into consideration which I think you and many others have never even contemplated.

Social Security, public education, medicare, and medicaid. Since you seem so anti-Socialist, you must be against all these things, right?

In essence, yes. Social Security is so deeply entrenched however that it would be easier to reform it than to abolish it. Education… DEFINATELY! Care and Caid… reform.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 08:27 PM

loboinok,

I’m still waiting for evidence that the the ACLU is Socialist. Putting together a membership list from the 1920s and saying its relevant to today is laughable. You might as well call me a Nazi because my wife owns a Volkswagen (you know, Hilter’s little car company).

Prostitution, homosexuality, abortion, and the other issues have nothing at all to do with Socialism. There are many definitions of Socialism, and you’re ignoring every single one.

I get the point that you disagree with the positions the ACLU takes. You and I disagree, but you have every right to hold those positions. However, to call the ACLU Socialist ignores the last half century of history and flies in the face of logic and reason, so please stop the libel.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 08:41 PM

>Liberals gearing up for a coup will meet not only government

>resistance but a heavily armed people.”

“Wait, this sounds like you’re admitting a civilian militia doesn’t really have a chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government. Hey! You are!”

I couldn’t figure out what the hell he was trying to say. Unless…

“So wtf do we need guns for then? Protecting ourselves from animals? Don’t make me laugh…”

Hey, I think I may know what he was getting at…
That some people are just waiting for their chance to pop a few caps in the nearest Liberal?

Why you might ask?
Hmm… Maybe because the “smarty-pants elite” has been making the righties feel mighty insecure about their grasp on the facts for far too many years?
Hard to say…

You know, sometimes when I listen to these gun-nuts, it actually makes me want to buy one — because I keep getting the feeling that one of these days they’re going to make sure it’s between the Left and the Right — and I believe I’d like to be prepared.

Even though I’ve never felt the need to own a gun my entire adult life, I grew up firing pistols and rifles at targets because my Dad and Grandad always belonged to a shooting club. If I do say so myself, I was a pretty decent shot as a kid, so maybe with a little target practice, I’d be hitting whatever I take aim at once again.
And, if my liberal life depended on it, sure and it would put a wee bit o’ steel in me firing arm, too! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at April 25, 2005 09:07 PM

What libel? They say they are Socialist and I agree with them. Thats not libel. There is nothing there pertaining to false or malicious.

They are a public organization not a person.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 09:09 PM

They say they are Socialist

No, they don’t. I’ve asked you to defend that claim, and you have failed miserably. You have not provided a bit of relevant, timely evidence that they do this. You hate them and you hate Socialism, so you conflate them (adding in a mix of ancient history). It’s both false and malicious.

You’re right that libel pertains to a person, so the legal definition does not hold. Otherwise, it’s an accurate description. Would you prefer that I simply call you a liar for your published words or pictures that falsely and maliciously defame an organization? Or should I just point out that you call the members Socialists, so you are indirectly libelling individuals?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 09:16 PM

Even though I’ve never felt the need to own a gun my entire adult life,

If you wait until you FEEL the need, you might as wait alittle longer.

I’d be hitting whatever I take aim at once again.

THAT is my definition of ‘gun control’! ;^)

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 09:20 PM

Start paying attention to what they are doing and less to what they are saying!

Ok, let’s look at a few cases they’ve taken up:

• ACLU supports baptisms in parks.
  
• ACLU fights to keep a church from being closed.
  
• ACLU worked with JERRY FALWELL to make sure churches can incorporate.
  
• ACLU protects a Native American’s right to practice his religion in jail.
  
• ACLU of Michigan Wants “Gag Order†on College Trustees Ended
  
• ACLU Calls on Congressional Conferees to Reject Real ID, Measure Lacked Thorough Debate and Deliberation
• ACLU Charges South Dakota County Blocking Native Americans from Holding Public Office
• ACLU of Virginia Offers Legal Aid to Methadone Clinics Barred From Opening Under New Law

I could go on and on. Over and over again, their definition and mine are supported by the facts. Yours isn’t. And nowhere do they define themselves as Socialist.

The ACLU is not anti-religious, Socialist, or anti-American. Although one might disagree with a particular stand the ACLU takes, it’s really just a group protecting our rights. These cases support their self-definition and give lie to your libelous notion that they are anti-religious and anti-American. Please stop the libel.

BTW, I tried posting that with links, but the blogging software thought it was spam for some reason. I can supply the URLs by email if you’d like.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 09:23 PM

Or should I just point out that you call the members Socialists, so you are indirectly libelling individuals?

What I write has been in the public domain for decades.

As for individuals… I know none personally that are ACLU and the ones I write of are, as I said before, in the public domain and have been for decades.

What we are discussing here is the 2nd Amendment and the ACLU’s position on it.

As for my position on their Socialism, I have given you their stated position and shown when and why they thought it best to hide it from the public. I could list all their stated positions and all court cases they have taken and marry the two, but it would be a waste of time in this case.

It would be worth the effort for an article to post on our blog though.

Posted by: loboinok at April 25, 2005 09:52 PM

What I write has been in the public domain for decades.

And you are libelling people today who have nothing to do with those statements from the 1920s.

I know none personally that are ACLU

Adrienne’s in the ACLU. You’re libelling her. I’m a member. You are libelling me.

I have given you their stated position

Once again, no you have not. You have given the positions of people who were in the organization decades ago. This is irrelevant.

When are you going to provide evidence to back your dispersions? I’ve been to your website, and it presents several cases with which you disagree. Against that, I provided plenty of counter-examples that you probably like, which you chose to ignore (or do the cases to support baptisms in parks, keep a church from being closed, and make sure churches can incorporate just not matter?).

I know you have an axe to grind that seems to blind you from supporting your claims or acknowledge their inherent flaws. I have no idea why you feel that way about the ACLU, but I ask you to stop spreading accusations that are demonstrably false.

You have the right to hate the ACLU, but if anyone ever tries to force you to stop expressing your views, I know an organization that would gladly take on your case. One of their most admirable traits is the willingness to defend unpopular causes.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 10:05 PM

Very nicely done, Lawnboy!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 25, 2005 10:15 PM

The cases you site are true, and the ACLU has a noble claim in their mission statement. Their idealogy blindly causes them to work against their own cause without any concern for consequence. They need to wake up! They piss off a lot of people, and a lot of people want them to cease with their attack on Christianity and all of their hypocritical, elitist, absolutist, extreme, radical agenda.

The only proof needed can be seen with your own eyes! If anyone ever tried to make me cease in my efforts to fight them, and the ACLU wanted to help…they would be right to do so, and they just might do it. This isn’t the issue. I don’t have a problem with the things they do that upholds the Constitution, but the things they do that threatens our society and perverts the Constitution.

Read their policy…you will see that it is socialism. And anyone who follows that policy wouldn’t be libelled to be called a socialist. You follow the teachings of socialism, and that what you are.

Oh? You haven’t seen their policy? Since you are a member, why don’t you request one. Get back to me when you have it. I think you will find that they won’t provide it to you! Hmmm. I however have seen much of their policies and I could debate you all day long on these idiots.

Posted by: Jay at April 25, 2005 10:59 PM

Read their policy…you will see that it is socialism. And anyone who follows that policy wouldn’t be libelled to be called a socialist. You follow the teachings of socialism, and that what you are.

Where? I’ve asked countless times in this thread to be shown policy statements that show the ACLU to be socialist. Nothing has been provided except empty claims.

If you have access to such a policy (and someone must, given all the references to specific policy numbers), then it behooves you to provide it. Otherwise, you’re just whistling in the dark.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2005 11:05 PM

What? you can’t get the policy? You are a proud card carrying member! C’mon now! Why wouldn’t your organization provide it to you?

I said I’ve got a lot of their policy…The ACLU will not release the full policy to the public. Wonder why?

They say it is for “internal purposes only”.

I’ve seen much of the policy in a book written by William Donahue, who was able to get his hands on the policy.