ACLU haters

[mbhalihunter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n7dAUnSBFg

[Marcus]

Interesting.

[zenspearo]

Good video mbhali.

There is really no cultural war. There are those who would want people to believe that there is a war against Christianity, against conservative values, etc.

It's easy to rally people to your side, and to fill them with your ideology and to manipulate them if you scare them enough. And the ACLU has certainly been a favorite bugaboo of groups like Fox et al.

I've said it in many of my posts about the ACLU (in response to charges that the ACLU protects rapists, child molesters, etc.).

The ACLU doesn't take side with any group. They take side with constitutional rights, mostly those dealing with the first amendment, and they could care less if your group is NAACP or KKK, Christian or Muslim.

[Bill McIntyre]

I agree with everything that zenspearo said, but I found it curious that fighting for a Christmas tree in the Maui case had anything to do with religion. Is there something in the Christian bible telling us to put up evergreen trees and decorate them?

I would have thought a more balanced response to the menorah would have been a cross.

[Bill McIntyre]

Speaking of the "War On Christmas," this article in today's LA Times shows how its been going on for a long time. Its interesting how churches have switched side, as evidenced by

"But the Baptist Teacher, a Sunday school periodical, editorialized in 1875: 'We believe in Christmas — not as a holy day but as a holiday…. Stripped as it ought to be, of all pretensions of religiou' sanctity and simply regarded as a social and domestic institution." Ironically, modern-day Baptists would excoriate any newspaper that published such an editorial."

***********************************
A lull in the war on Christmas
By M.Z. Hemingway
M.Z. HEMINGWAY writes for getreligion.org.

December 24, 2006

IT JUST DOESN'T seem like Christmas this year — because there have been so few stories in the media about how the holiday is under siege by secular progressives. Some irony-deficient Chicago officials refused to allow advertising for "The Nativity Story" at the city's annual Christkindlmarket, an open-air re-creation of a European village. And Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's staff removed — then replaced — more than a dozen Christmas trees after a rabbi threatened to sue if a menorah wasn't included in the display. But, by and large, it's been a quiet season.

The Christmas wars were inescapable in 2005. The American Family Assn., a pro-family Christian group, led a boycott of Target because of its reputed refusal to use the word "Christmas" in its advertising and store promotions. Other Christian organizations criticized Macy's and Wal-Mart for favoring the generic "Happy Holidays" greeting over "Merry Christmas." (This year, the retailers returned to Christmas-specific language in their sales signs and promotions.) Fox News, CNN and MSNBC aired numerous stories about secularist grinches.

The salvos between politically correct busybodies and pious protesters in 2004 were equally intense. Denver prohibited a church group from participating in its annual Parade of Lights because it wanted to sing Christmas songs; a New Jersey high school barred its band from playing religious-themed Christmas music; a Kansas newspaper published a correction apologizing for calling a Community Tree a Christmas Tree; and a priest got in trouble for telling kindergartners that Jesus — not Santa — was the reason for Christmas.

But the war on Christmas didn't start in 2004 either. In fact, it's been ebbing and flowing for centuries wherever Christianity is practiced — and especially in the United States. Debating how — or even whether — to celebrate Christmas seems to be one of Americans' favorite pastimes.

Although commonly perceived as a secular versus religious debate, the earliest Christmas wars were interdenominational battles. Some Protestants rejected holy days such as Christmas because they were not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, while Anglicans, Lutherans and Roman Catholics retained the liturgical calendar. By the time secularists targeted Christmas in the 20th century, the interdenominational battles were over, and virtually all Christians adopted Christmas as a holy day.

From the beginning, Mayflower Pilgrims didn't mark Christmas, considering it "diabolical" because its celebration was encouraged by their enemy, the pope. The Puritans' political influence was so strong in Massachusetts that the commonwealth banned the holiday's observance until 1681. Meanwhile, Roman Catholics in Maryland, Anglicans in Virginia and Lutherans in Pennsylvania celebrated Christmas.

Interdenominational disagreements and language barriers prevented the development of any broad consensus on how to celebrate the holiday. But in the early 19th century, businessmen and religious leaders began calling for a wider and more public observance of Christmas. Quakers, Congregationalists and Calvinists still balked at marking the day because of its commercialism and revelry. But acceptance of the holiday haltingly grew. By 1860, 16 of 33 states legally recognized Christmas. It took another 10 years before Congress made it a federal holiday.

But the debate over how much religious content should be in the celebration of Christmas continued. Liturgical Christians regarded the day as sacred because they believed it marked God's incarnation in Jesus. But the Baptist Teacher, a Sunday school periodical, editorialized in 1875: "We believe in Christmas — not as a holy day but as a holiday…. Stripped as it ought to be, of all pretensions of religious sanctity and simply regarded as a social and domestic institution." Ironically, modern-day Baptists would excoriate any newspaper that published such an editorial.

The emergence of Santa Claus as central to Christmas in the 19th century caused great consternation among many religious Americans. "This Santa Claus folly has infected family life, literature, church services, everything almost, at this season," wrote one Lutheran critic in 1883. That same year, however, George William Curtis, a founder of the Republican Party and political editor of Harper's Weekly, published a piece thanking the Puritans for stripping Christmas of its theological foundations. Christmas "could not be the most beautiful of festivals if it were doctrinal, or dogmatic, or theological, or local," he wrote.

In the early 20th century, New York City's Committee on Elementary Schools urged that Christmas carols be banned in classrooms after 20,000 Jewish students boycotted classes in protest. Some movies in the 1940s, including "Miracle on 34th Street" and "It's a Wonderful Life," introduced a nonreligious iconography that secular and religious Americans could unite behind. In the late 1950s, the John Birch Society issued tracts accusing godless communists of waging war on Christmas.

Before the fighting picked up again in 2004, school administrators, fearful of lawsuits, banned every Bach cantata sung at a public school in 2001, and secularists began winning battles in court against the exclusive display of creches in the public square. Pro-Christmas forces responded with "Jesus Is the Reason for the Season" and "Put Christ Back in Christmas" rallying cries, leading us to where we are today.

The relative absence of yuletide battles this year hardly means a truce has been declared. Judging by history, they will soon return to let us know it's the season.
[COLOR=Navy]

[Marcus]

It appears the evangelical right winged has used the ACLU as a tool for their fear mongering and underlying agenda to push further religion deeper into our government...quite scary for the sanctity of our constitution.

[jettyrat21]

The ACLU are the biggest pieces of sh*t in the world. Did you guys forget they represented NAMBLA in Mass.?

[GRIM REEFER]

That was some of the most asinine shit I've seen in a long time.
ACLU for Christians?! :eek:
Come on now, They support everything that is wrong

[Wayward Son]

I know it's possible I may have missed it, but I can't recall ever seeing the ACLU stand up for a Christian, ever, under any circumstance.

[aaron proffitt]

Or gun owners. Last time I checked the 2nd amendment still exists and yet can't say as I can recall the ACLU ever taking up that Constitutional right.
Talk about picking and choosing which liberty/ies they deem worthy.

[Wayward Son]

The ACLU holds the position that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals, so there is nothing to defend or discuss. Yes, they are very selective in their application of the constitution & bill of rights.

[aaron proffitt]

As far as defending the Klan...isn't it paradoxial to defend an organization that wants to curtail the civil rights of a group/groups ?

[mbhalihunter]

That was some of the most asinine shit I've seen in a long time.
ACLU for Christians?! :eek:
Come on now, They support everything that is wrong

I didn't know the constitution was wrong!

[aaron proffitt]

I didn't know the constitution was wrong!


See above....

[chuam]

The NRA defends the 2nd amendment pretty well. The ACLU pretty much sticks to the 1st. You may not like what they do but they are fighting on behalf of the constitution. Hard to see how that is bad.

[aaron proffitt]

So what about defending the Klan,chuam ?
Just going for headlines or legit cause ?

[Bill McIntyre]

So what about defending the Klan,chuam ?
Just going for headlines or legit cause ?

I'm not chaum, but I'll give my answer anyway.

As much as I hate the assholes, the Klan has the right to march and speak as it wishes. I can't advocate muzzling the Klan unless I'm willing to be muzzled myself.

Its when the Klan starts burning crosses on my lawn, lynching me, etc. that we have a problem. That sort of thing is illegal, but expressing hateful ideas is not, because my hateful idea may be your word from the almighty.

[aaron proffitt]

But that's what they advocate ,Bill. Taking away the civil rights of others. The KKK mantra in a nutshell.

The hypocisy of the ACLU is agonizing.

[zenspearo]

But that's what they advocate ,Bill. Taking away the civil rights of others. The KKK mantra in a nutshell.

The hypocisy of the ACLU is agonizing.

It would have been hypocritical if the ACLU did NOT represent the KKK since the ACLU's allegiance is to the constitution, not to any particular ideology

Advocate. Expression. All those things are protected. The first amendment does not favor one idea over another. It simply guarantees a free market of ideas, and whether the KKK idea is repugnant to some, they have the right to EXPRESS it.

Remember that this country was founded by a bunch of traitors, spouting tax-evading and treasonous ideas that were repugnant to many at that time. So it's a slippery slope when deciding which idea can be expressed and which idea should be prohibited.

The ACLU does not protect the KKK's right to lynch or to intimidate. But as far as standing on the street corner and spout--that their right.

[jettyrat21]

The ACLU has publicly stated that the North American Man Boy Love Association has the right to run a websight not only advocating man boy love buy actually giving instructinons on how to pick up and rape young boys, all in the name of free speech. Do you guys really support this?

[Marcus]

The ACLU has publicly stated that the North American Man Boy Love Association has the right to run a websight not only advocating man boy love buy actually giving instructinons on how to pick up and rape young boys, all in the name of free speech. Do you guys really support this?

I support the constitution which allows these sickos to do this. There IS a difference.

[jettyrat21]

Marcus,
Dude, I love most of your posts and believe we share a sick sense of humor, but not all speech is protected by the constitution. You can't shout FIRE in a crowded room, and to facilitate child molesters in the name of free speech is reprehensable and it would be quite a strech to equate that with protecting someones constitutional rights.

[Bill McIntyre]

Jettyrat- have you actually looked at the web site? I haven't, but before we get too wrapped up in it, I'd want to know for myself what it says rather than relying on what somone else wants to tell me it says.

[jettyrat21]

Bill,
Never been to the site , but the name of the organization is enough to tell me that they shouldn't exist in a civilized society.

Vito

[Wayward Son]

So Mark Foley, for sending emails & messages to (but not actually, yanno, having sex with) a teenager that could legally consent in DC, is to be despised, but the ACLU, for defending NAMBLA who says "Sex before eight or it's too late", is to be applauded?

Once again I'm confused.

[zenspearo]

So Mark Foley, for sending emails & messages to (but not actually, yanno, having sex with) a teenager that could legally consent in DC, is to be despised, but the ACLU, for defending NAMBLA who says "Sex before eight or it's too late", is to be applauded?

Once again I'm confused.

Let's get this out of the way once and for all.

If people have read the case, they would know that ACLU does not give a whit what NAMBLA's message is. The central issue in that case is murder and whether an organization's can be held responsible for murder committed by its member, which murder has nothing to do with the organization's website.

The whole ACLU-NAMBLA thing is a red herring trumpeted by those who see that they have something to gain by again waving the ACLU bugaboo.

They count on the fact that most people don't read the case, and can easily be blinded by the "NAMBLA" label.

If the plaintiff had succeeded in holding NAMBLA responsible for murder, imagine Spearboard being held responsible if one of its members go out spearing and drown. Why not? Don't we advocate going out in dangeous water, waving around deadly weapon? Or if one of its members go on a rampage and kill someone--let's sue the Spearboard owner. Why not? Doesn't the website push a blood sport, thereby insensitizing its members to bleeding and suffering? ACLU thought such argument is ridiculous, and thus the representation.

To a vegetarian or an animal lover, Spearboard's position is as repugnant (a position we will never understand--but there are those willing to commit violence, going to jail, to defend a chicken).

Let's be perfectly clear. NAMBLA is advocating a repugnant position, to me and to most people. But you can't hold their steering commeittee members and founders responsible for MURDER simply because you don't like what they say.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From Wikipedia:

The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members and NAMBLA Steering Committee members.

The target of the wrongful death suits were Roy Radow, Joe Power, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter, Arnold Schoen and David Thorstad, a co-founder of NAMBLA and well-known writer. The Curleys alleged that Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari, who were convicted of the rape and murder of their ten-year-old son Jeffrey, were NAMBLA members (see note at NAMBLA)

As of April 2005 the wrongful death cases were still before the courts, with the ACLU assisting the defendants on the grounds that the suit violated their First Amendment rights. [3]. The ACLU makes it clear, however, that it does not endorse NAMBLA's objectives. "We've never taken a position that sexual-consent laws are beyond the state's power to legislate," John Reinstein, attorney for the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in 1997. "I've never been able to fathom their position." (Boston Globe, October 9, 1997).

[Wayward Son]

"The target of the wrongful death suits were Roy Radow, Joe Power, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter, Arnold Schoen and David Thorstad, a co-founder of NAMBLA and well-known writer. The Curleys alleged that Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari, who were convicted of the rape and murder of their ten-year-old son Jeffrey, were NAMBLA members"

Well, considering that legally there is no consensual sex between an adult & a 10 year old, that would have to be rape. Without knowing more details, how did the boy die? Did they intentionally kill him or did he die of injuroes from the raping?

By raping the boy, they were actually doing what NAMBLA explicitly advocates doing. So no, I don't see that a connection could not possibly be made from the organization to the rape of the boy & possibly the death, if the death was a result of those actions.

Spearboard doe NOT advocate that people kill people, to use your specific example. We're engaged in pursuing & advocating activities that are perfectly legal. So no, I don't see it being very reasonable to claim some connection between SB and the murder of a human.

[jettyrat21]

[QUOTE=zenspearo]Let's get this out of the way once and for all.

If people have read the case, they would know that ACLU does not give a whit what NAMBLA's message is.


That is the crux of the matter. They dont care, there just a bunch of bully's looking for a fight or a cause, even if they have to make one up. They are the Rainbow Push Coalition with law degrees, "We know whats right, even if you are to stupid to know that we are right we will sue you until you understand or run out of money."

Zen,
I was referencing quotes buy Antony Romero, Head Nut currently at the ACLU.

[zenspearo]

Without knowing more details, how did the boy die? Did they intentionally kill him or did he die of injuroes from the raping?



The case is easy enough to look up on google. That's what kills me. People jumping up and down without bothering to read the case. A Jeffersonian democracy depends on an informed electorate to function.

The killing is at the center of this case (thus it's called a wrongful death case). In this case, NAMBLA does not advocate killing. It doesn't advocate coercive sex either.
I know because as a parent of two boys, I was shocked enough to look up the case and read it.

Spearboard doe NOT advocate that people kill people, to use your specific example. We're engaged in pursuing & advocating activities that are perfectly legal. So no, I don't see it being very reasonable to claim some connection between SB and the murder of a human.


If the emotionalism can be put aside, which is what one has to do when dealing with constitutional issues, NAMBLA doesn't advocate killing either.

And NAMBLA is also engaged in a legal, constitutionally protected free speech activity: advocating--not doing, simply advocating--a change in the law (age of consent in this case). So yes, what they are doing is also perfectly legal, as repugnant a position as it may seem to me and you.

As I said, this case is being trotted out as an easy ACLU bugaboo because the conservatives count on people not reading the case and not being able to see beyond the emotional issue.

[zenspearo]

[QUOTE=zenspearo]Let's get this out of the way once and for all.

If people have read the case, they would know that ACLU does not give a whit what NAMBLA's message is.


That is the crux of the matter. They dont care, there just a bunch of bully's looking for a fight or a cause, even if they have to make one up. They are the Rainbow Push Coalition with law degrees, "We know whats right, even if you are to stupid to know that we are right we will sue you until you understand or run out of money."

And we should thankful that they don't care what the message is--and they should NOT be in the business of choosing which message is right. Their job is to defend the right to free speech (the operative word is "free") and let the marketplace of ideas decide which message will resonate.

And that's the way the constituttion is intended.

The crux of the matter, thankfully protected by the First Amendment: We may not like what you say, but you have the right to say it.

In some Europe countries, you can be jailed for questioning the Holocaust. Just for voicing your doubt. In some Muslim countries, you can be killed for speaking against the religion.

That's what happens when you start playing games with which message is "right" and which message is "wrong."

[QUOTE=zenspearo]"We know whats right, even if you are to stupid to know that we are right we will sue you until you understand or run out of money."

Zen,
I was referencing quotes buy Antony Romero, Head Nut currently at the ACLU.

Really? That really sucks.

Do you know where the quotes come from? I do like some of the things the ACLU do and I don't like others things that they do. It would be great to have this quote. Do you have a source?

Anyway guys--I'm back to spearing topics.

[jettyrat21]

ACLU verses America by Alan Sears. It's a book.

[zenspearo]

ACLU verses America by Alan Sears. It's a book.


Will check it out. Thx.

Funny thing is if I find out my dive buddy is a member of NAMBLA, I may just forget to pick him up on my boat after I surface from my dive. Hey, I have 2 boys.

That's why I'm not working with the ACLU but I see their position.

I'm peace out.

[Wayward Son]

Why is it that they sue schools for the slightest connection to anything chirstian, but remain silent when students are forced to engage in muslim activities? When they have to do things -in public school, lead by a teacher- such as saying muslim prayers in the classroom, even when they & their families object?

I would be able to give them far more credibility for having this principal that you're defending here, if I had not read numerous reports where such things have occurred but the ACLU has remained silent & apparently refused to take up the case of preventing the school from forcing students to engage in religious activities. They seem to be very selective in their application of their principals.

[Wayward Son]

Here is one such example, just so you know I'm not pulling the notion out of my ass. Where's the ACLU on this one?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52335

'Five pillars of Islam' taught in public school
'Education practice wouldn't last 10 seconds if kids told to dress as priests'
Posted: October 10, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Another school has been "teaching" Islam by having students study and learn Muslim prayers and dress as Muslims, and a lawyer who argued a previous dispute over this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court said such methodologies wouldn't "last 10 seconds" if it were Christianity being taught.

"Would it have been 'just cultural education' if students were in simulated baptisms, wearing a crucifix, having taken the name of St. John and with praise banners saying 'Praise be to Jesus Christ' on classroom walls?" asked Edward White III, of the Thomas More Law Center.

His comments came after a new protest arose in Nyssa, Ore., where one parent raised objections when the Islamic teachings came to light. The district there, according to Supt. Don Grotting, is teaching a chapter in a history textbook "Journey Across Time" that talks about "how civilization has developed and some of the particular aspects of Islam."

"We teach out of the book, and there are some supplemental class activities," he told WND. "The kids do some skits, they could bring a food from the region, you could build a prop that would have depicted (something) maybe during that time period.

"If you wanted to you could dress up (as a Muslim) for extra credit," he said.

He said students also learned about the climate of the Middle East, the food and everyday activities of Islam, and the geography and the lay of the land.

Still another assignment was to learn the "five pillars" of Islam, study Ramadan and listen to guest speakers including an American Muslim who arrived dressed in her religious costume to talk to the kids about her Quran.

"She relayed to the kids, if you're a Christian you have your Bible, this is our Quran," Grotting said.

Parent Kendalee Garner, however, objected to having her son being taught Islam and also to the time the public school system spends on the subject.

She told WND that her 13-year-old son is being "indoctrinated that Islam is a religion of peace, and being dressed up as a Muslim, being taught prayers, and scriptures out of the Quran."

"I just don't understand the ban on Christianity but Islam has free rein," she said.

She said the guest speakers and skits and reports were wrong, but what set her off was a class in which students in all three social studies classes dressed in traditional Islamic outfits.

"The only reason I knew about it was because my son told me about it," she said. "They sent him to the library instead of stopping what they were doing. I'm sure people would be outraged if they dressed up as the pope."

That was White's point exactly.

If that's how teaching about religions is done, he said, "then teach all religions in the same way, Christianity, Judaism. Have the kids study Native American religions, do the dance, smoke the pipe. Have the kids dress up as priests and hear confession."

He said when he suggests that, school managers and even judges get that "panic-stricken" look.

He knows because he argued the same dispute up to the U.S. Supreme Court after complaints of similar teachings in the Byron Union School District in California.

As WND has reported that case was almost a duplicate. Teachers were having students memorize Islamic prayers, wear Islamic dress and learn to behave as a Muslim under the guise of studying history.

Some parents objected and their resulting lawsuit was turned back by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where the opinion called it "cultural education."

The U.S. Supreme Court last week declined to intervene, but lawyers note that's not necessarily an endorsement of the court; it just means the justices will not review the dispute at this point.

White said he actually challenged the 9th Circuit to write its instructions in a detailed opinion, so schools would know exactly what's required. However, he said the court brushed him off with a three-paragraph ruling that essentially boils down to one district judge saying it's okay in one school district.

"Why is it okay to teach Islam? Unless there's an exception in the Establishment Clause, which says you cannot teach religion in schools unless it's Islam," he said. "I haven't seen it."

Grotting said the course has been taught for several years, and comes mandated by the state under a set of required standards – called Benchmark 3 – that students must reach each year.

Grotting acknowledged to WND that textbooks do "take a slant" on some issues, because publishers "are wanting to sell a textbook that is meeting the needs of the state and federal mandates."

"I believe we're not here to promote or advocate either religion or politics," social studies teacher Jim Casad told the Ontario, Ore., Argus Observer. "However, we do have an obligation to inform students of what is going on in our world today and how history and culture have affected that world."

In the California case, school officials also blamed the "possible cant" of the textbook and said the Islamic studies were being taught because of state mandates.

"It is imperative that our instruction includes an understanding of and insight into all cultures and a tolerance for the diversity found in the world," said Peggy Green, the Byron Union School District superintendent, at that time.

A review online of information from the text shows that it teaches Christianity spread because "it gave meaning to peoples' lives, appealed to their emotions and promised happiness after death."

Its description also focuses on Christians' conflicts with Rome (when they were fed to lions), and splits between Christians following Roman teachings and those following the teachings of Constantine.

However, the article praises how the Muslims founded the system for banking, created important centers for learning, government and the arts, how they ran "government, society and business" and made valuable contributions in math, science and the arts.

The text also credits Muslims with inventing algebra and chemistry as well as creating beautiful buildings, citing the Taj Mahal, although the text does not mention that that is a tomb.

There's also no mention of the Quranic instruction that Muslims must behead infidels, or nonbelievers.

One blogger said Christians should think strategically on such issues.

"Cases like this present Christians with a golden opportunity to introduce elements of religious teaching back into the state curriculum by using the left's double standard towards Islam against it," said one commentator. "Now that this case is on the books in the Ninth Circuit as precedent, expect Christian immersion classes to follow."

[Bill McIntyre]

In a previous thread, I mentioned something similar to what Wayward Son's article mentions. In the Middle School where my wife taught, the 7th grade social studies class had a unit on the great religions of the world, how they had influenced the course of history, what the principle tenets of their religions were, etc. No one bitched about the lessons and activities on Christianity, but some of the parents went bug**** on the day when they dressed in Muslim garb, brought typical Middle Eastern dishes for a picnic, etc.

And of course they spread the word that the teacher's husband was an Arab Muslim, when in fact he is one of the most right wing Christian caucasians that I happen to know, and at the time was flying for the US Air Force over Iraq in the first Gulf War.

I suppose the devil is in the details, but I think our kids ought not to be ignorant about other major religions. After all, Bush is said to have not realized that there were Sunnis, Shias, and that they didn't like each other until after we attacked Iraq, so maybe we'd all be better off if he had received some education on something other than Christianity.

In any event, are we really concerned that American kids will not receive sufficient indoctrination in Christianity to counter a few lessons spent on what Muslims believe, how they pray, etc.? Do we actually want them to remain ignorant about the Five Pillars of Islam and the meaning of Ramadan? Islam is out there, its a huge force in the world, and I think we'd be better off knowing more rather than less about it.

[aaron proffitt]

Don't even get me started on the Muslim hate mongers,Bill. Wish you hadn't even used them as an example.

Fact is,the ACLU started out with honorable intentions but got side tracked into taking up any cause that will grab headlines( and liberal donor dolars). It's pathetic.

[Marcus]

Don't even get me started on the Muslim hate mongers,Bill. Wish you hadn't even used them as an example.

Fact is,the ACLU started out with honorable intentions but got side tracked into taking up any cause that will grab headlines( and liberal donor dolars). It's pathetic.


That's a shame, if true. We as citizens of the US need an organization that protects our constitutional rights. It seems there's many people who are more than willing to trample one of our basic rights this country was founded on in order to silence a certain group that they don't agree with, let alone 99.999% of the rest of America. In this particular case, it could be argued that the mere mention of NAMBLA in this thread has given them more exposure and harm to the morals of the US than than the ACLU ever has. The more exposure you give this perverse group, the more people are made aware of them and the chance that one of those people are one of the perverts that would join their cause....things that make you go hmmm.

[Marcus]

Wayward,

Knowing your stance on the right to bear arms...just curious...do you believe the government shouldn't allow certain groups to be allowed to have/buy guns, i.e. Waco Texas cult?

...stirring the pot. :D

[aaron proffitt]

Wayward,

Knowing your stance on the right to bear arms...just curious...do you believe the government shouldn't allow certain groups to be allowed to have/buy guns, i.e. Waco Texas cult?

...stirring the pot. :D


I'll answer that...current laws not withstanding,no...the govt. does not have that right.

[Bill McIntyre]

I'll answer that...current laws not withstanding,no...the govt. does not have that right.

This has been fought a jillion times on this board as well as everywhere else, but we can't really know what the 2nd Amendment meant. The reference to a "well armed militia" may have meant that the National Guard should have the right to bear arms. I know many people don't agree with that interpretation, but its as reasonable as any other.

But so I am sure what you meant by that statement, are you saying that the government doesn't have to right to prohibit the bearing of arms by convicted felons, paroled murderers, or anyone at all?

[zenspearo]

I'll answer that...current laws not withstanding,no...the govt. does not have that right.


How about NAMBLA members? Can they play with guns too ;)

[apnea_complex]

How about NAMBLA members? Can they play with guns too ;)

As long as they shoot each other !!! :lol:

[zenspearo]

As long as they shoot each other !!! :lol:

:lol:

Not simple, is it?

By the way, I don't believe the ACLU's interpretation of the Second Amendment is any more correct than the NRA's.

[Wayward Son]

The short answer is that we already ban large groups of people from possessing guns.

The longer answer is that IMO, if you are somehow deemed too dangerous or crazy to be allowed to have a gun, then you should not be turned loose on society.

[jettyrat21]

Wayward,

Knowing your stance on the right to bear arms...just curious...do you believe the government shouldn't allow certain groups to be allowed to have/buy guns, i.e. Waco Texas cult?

...stirring the pot. :D


Any US citizen with a clean record should be able to own a firearm. I have no problem with a background check, but that should be the only hoop you have to jump through.

[chuam]

Any US citizen with a clean record should be able to own a firearm. I have no problem with a background check, but that should be the only hoop you have to jump through.

So only citizens? What about permanent residents and such?

[Choco-Taco]

just rubber-powered spearguns...

[Wayward Son]

Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

[aaron proffitt]

But so I am sure what you meant by that statement, are you saying that the government doesn't have to right to prohibit the bearing of arms by convicted felons, paroled murderers, or anyone at all?

Nope,refer back to laws not withstanding...convicted felons and so on are barred by law from owning firearms as well as several other groups.

[Bill McIntyre]

Nope,refer back to laws not withstanding...convicted felons and so on are barred by law from owning firearms as well as several other groups.

I know that's what the law says. I was just wondering if you thought that the constitution permitted such restrictions, or that you considered these laws unconstitutional.

[jettyrat21]

So only citizens? What about permanent residents and such?
I have no problem with permanent residents with clean background checks owning firearms. All 4 of my grandparents are from the old country, and I still have family pimpin' on the streets of Palermo, so I might be a little biased. :D

I'm not sure if the constution covers the rights of perminant residents, and thats my bad for not knowing. However, I dont think that guns are the problem, its poor enforcement of laws currently on the books that allow criminals access to guns.