I don't remember the Constitution mentioning that I have to register my "Arms" in order to "Bare" them.

and the lambs lie down with lions....

Life is SO interesting sometimes

I don't remember the Constitution mentioning that I have to register my "Arms" in order to "Bare" them.

Not to be a pain in the ass, because you do, technically, have a point...


The Constitution also doesn't mention you having the right to post things on an internet message board.

As time, technology and society progresses, the Constitution will be re-inturprated (or however that's spelled). IT's just the way things work.

I am glad the ACLU is defending all of the Bill of Rights. Up until this point, I always though the ACLU kind of ignore the Second Amendment.

As fa a posting messages in the Internet, our right of free "speech" can not be infringed upong by the govt. However, that doesn't mean that the Web Site owner can't take down whatever message he deslikes for whatever reason (even a completely dumb reason). Priveleges vs Rights, there is a difference.

Member,

Yes, your right to free speech cannot be infringed upon by the government.

My point was (and incredibly poorly made, I must admit), that the right to free speech doesn't mention typing messeges on the internet. As such, in theory, what you type COULD be infringed upon, should a court deside typing is not "speech".

In the same way, the courts (or other government institutions) can, and have, decided the right to bare arms is not absolute.

I think the Elastic Clause is there to deal with unforseen technological changes. For example, Congress has the power to raise Armies and Navies. But what about an Air Force? Since Air Force is not in the Constitution the Congress can not provide funding for it, right? No, because the elastice clause expands the powr of congress to provide for different Branches of the Millitary. However, this does not mean that our Second or any right can be infringed upon because of unforseen technological changes because the purpose of the Constitution is to protect our Rights. And besides, the 9th Amendment affirms all our rights, even thous not Explicitly stated in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by RevDarko at 2007-04-05 04:30 PM

"My point was (and incredibly poorly made, I must admit), that the right to free speech doesn't mention typing messeges on the internet. As such, in theory, what you type COULD be infringed upon, should a court deside typing is not "speech"."

It is a point that was pointless to make. Arguing for the sake of arguing.

It can be extrapolated from your rather bizarre statement that books, newspapers, had-writteen documents, any item that contains type/print could then be exempted. Simply because type appears electronically in no way cancels the right of the writer to express.

The message is what free speech is about, not the medium in which it is presented.

However, this does not mean that our Second or any right can be infringed upon because of unforseen technological changes because the purpose of the Constitution is to protect our Rights

In a way, you are incorrect.

Using the second amendment right to bare arms, let's look at it from a technological standpoint:

You, as a citizen of the US have the right to bare arms (we'll ignore the "well regulated millitia" part, as that's a sticking point for some people, and is not relavent to my point). At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as, say, a cruise missile. In fact, I doubt it was even imagined at the time.

Now, technically, does the Constitution grant you the right to have cruise missiles? Sure. It's not, however, logical to believe that a Civillian would have the right to that kind of armament.

"have the right to bare arms"

Even if it does lead to skin cancer.

It is a point that was pointless to make. Arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, Zot. My point was that the Constitution has to continually be reinterpreted. I used a poor example, I freely admit, but my point was valid.

Perhapse I misread the post I was reponding to, but it seems to me that Master was reading his right to bare arms as absolute. Technological and societal changes have made it necessary to re-interperate that part of the Constitution. A citizen still has the right to bare arms, but there are certain restrictions necessary to protect the life and liberty of other citizens.

"should a court deside typing is not "speech""

Amendment One
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Do you see the work "press" in there, Franklin?

Okay, let me state this one more time:

I fucked up in my example.

Mea culpa.

My point was valid, but my example screwed that up entirely. Could I delete the post, I would.

word

I'm just funnin'.
Madison wrote the Second Amendment.
He thought the milita was the people.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."
-James Madison

"A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people."
-James Madison

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison

And while I'm at it:

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
-James Madison

"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
-James Madison

Not wanting to get into any kind of argument (I already lost. I admit.),

Franklin?

Maybe I'm not up on my insults, but why is it bad to referr to me as Franklin?

Data,

I'm aware of Madison's view in regards to the people being the militia. I actually agree with it. I do know, however, that there are people out there who disagree with that view.

Rev
Good
Seems to me any discussion of the Constitution should include a review of the recorded opinions of the authors. Otherwise you are discussing words alone, without their human context.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-James Madison

"a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government"


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Franklin?
Printing press.

The First Amendment explicitly protects both spoken and printed speech. The printing hasn't changed, only the printing press.

Its normal for the ACLU to back the second amendment. Hell, they fought for Sham Hammity in the eighties because they thought he was unrightfully fired, although you won't here him say it on his show.

We really do need to get back to the basics and overturn every law that infringes on our right to own weapons.

What is it about "Congress shall make no law..." that people don't understand?

Of course none of the laws passed in 1934, 1968, 1986, or 1993 had anything to do with actual criminal activity that affected the citizens of this country, but each followed a perceived threat to politicians or law enforcement.

What part of "no" don't they understand?

If the ACLU is protectin' them, guns must be commies.

The Right.

Next biggie for the ACLU: Does Rush Limbaugh have to disclose his prescription lists if he leads a parade of gun totin' KKKers through Skokie?

So the Communistas at the ACLU are fighting to protect rights that right wingers care about so it is good but when they fight to protect rights they don't care about it is bad.
The FACT that the ACLU's purpose is to protect American rights regardless of the political affiliation of the defendants is one that righties usually pretend isn't so...unless it is Rush Limbaugh or the 2nd amendment.
Selective cognisance causes the hypocrisy that is right wing politics.

What about a rocket launcher and a guy just out of the asylum?

What about a rocket launcher and a guy just out of the asylum?


Presumably, having been treated and released, he'd be perfectly healthy, right? And probably broke considering the rapaciousness in our health care system.

Mike, I can't tell if you're being facesious or not.

When the Constitution was written, there were a lot of things the founders couldn't have known about in terms of armaments.

I mean, think of this:

Biological weapons are "arms", are they not?

Would you want, say, your neighbour, the disgrunteled Wal-mart checkout clerk having the legal right to posess weaponized anthrax?

How about letting our old friend Niceville having a supply of ricin and a delivery system?

Some restriction must exist.

Are the ones we have in place now perfect? Hell no. Far from it. But arms DO need to be restricted.

Guess it depends on whether you consider the internet a private or public forum.

If the US government can sell missile launchers and bio-weapons to Saddam and the Taliban, then Americans should be able to own what ever type of assault rifles they can buy on the open market.

Good for the ACLU.

"So the Communistas at the ACLU are fighting to protect rights that right wingers care about so it is good but when they fight to protect rights they don't care about it is bad.
The FACT that the ACLU's purpose is to protect American rights regardless of the political affiliation of the defendants is one that righties usually pretend isn't so...unless it is Rush Limbaugh or the 2nd amendment.
Selective cognisance causes the hypocrisy that is right wing politics."
--DANNI

Don't worry Danni, they'll be back trying to outlaw religion soon enough.

As well they should. The ACLU should defend the rights of all Americans.

Sorry Rev, my response may seem absurd but it's actually easier to set up a lab to make ricin than it is to obtain a fully automatic firearm.

Anthrax is in the soil, and while it does take some expertise to isolate the spores and culture it, it's not an impossible task.

I have to leave it there. Much to do these fine spring days.

Live Or Die,

Are you a member of the ACLU?

I am. Your rhetoric is pathetic. The ACLU has NEVER tried to outlaw religion. We have only tried to make sure that it is kept seperate from government, as is law in this country. As I said in another thread, if, for example, a student is expelled for privately praying before class, the ACLU would jump on the school for its violation of that student's rights.

"Are you a member of the ACLU?"
--REVDARKO

No.

"I am."

I'm sorry to hear that.

Anyhow, good for the ACLU on not being total left wing nut jobs.

Would you want, say, your neighbour, the disgrunteled Wal-mart checkout clerk having the legal right to posess weaponized anthrax?

You're just as dead if killed by anthrax than if killed by a steak knife or a pair of scissors.

Unless we're planning on banning all pointy objects, the real problem is people who want to kill other people, not the means by which they do it.

If you think about it, an NFL linebacker with a baseball bat can probably kill more people in a shopping mall if everyone is unarmed, than a terrorist could with an AK-47, if everyone else is armed.

And if you're talking about biological warfare, that's probably harder to accomplish now than in the past. In the middle ages they simply flung the corpse of those who'd died of the plague or smallpox over the city wall to wipe out an oponent.

I'd bet 200 years ago it was a lot easier to find someone infected by small pox, than it is today to buy smallpox on the black market.

""As I said in another thread, if, for example, a student is expelled for privately praying before class, the ACLU would jump on the school for its violation of that student's rights.""

Yeah, you find me that case Mr. Paranoia.

Good for you REVDARKO, you guys do a lot of good for America.

Anyhow, good for the ACLU on not being total left wing nut jobs.

When the Righties are hiding under their bed pissing themselves with fear over the thought of muslims forcing them to live under Sharia law, they should realize that it is the ACLU that will ensure that Sharia law does not take over America.

"When the Righties are hiding under their bed pissing themselves with fear over the thought of muslims forcing them to live under Sharia law, they should realize that it is the US military that will ensure that Sharia law does not take over America."
--NORM_THE_TOUGH_GUY

I saw you made a slight error so I fixed it for you.

C'Mon Rightists! Where's your outrage at the American Commie Lovers Union??

Live or Die,

So the US Military is going to invade Dearborn, MI or Minnesota and take out the muslims if they make a claim that they and their neighbors must be ruled by Sharia Law?
Really now, who's being the tough guy?

The US military has no jurisdiction inside the US. Sharia Law will not be imposed on us from without, but from within, where it will be a civilian matter for the courts.
And you'd better hope the ACLU is there to stop it.

LIVE_OR_DIE,

When the Righties are forcing their Fundi Christian laws upon America, it will be the US military they have coerced into enforcing those laws, at the expense of the US Constitution.

I think that's what YOU actually meant to say.

"So the US Military is going to invade Dearborn, MI or Minnesota and take out the muslims if they make a claim that they and their neighbors must be ruled by Sharia Law?
Really now, who's being the tough guy?

The US military has no jurisdiction inside the US. Sharia Law will not be imposed on us from without, but from within, where it will be a civilian matter for the courts.
And you'd better hope the ACLU is there to stop it."
--NORM_THE_TOUGH_GUY

LOL, yeah, the ACLU will protect us from islamic dominance. Because you know when muslims get together and try to impose Sharia law they do it peacefully through court battles, or they go door to door harassing their neighbors like mormons. You know, "from within."

I think you're more worried about forced Sharia law than I am. You've actually thought out scenarios in which it could happen, and how grateful you are the ACLU is there to defend you from it. Does that make you a pants pisser?

Norm:

"The US military has no jurisdiction inside the US. "

This is not true.

I am assuming that you are referring to the Posse Comitatus act of 1878.

The military can be authorized by Congress to act within the US.

Excerpt:

"From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress."

In all seriousness, I don't think the ACLU is the anti-Christ or anything.

I just thought it was overboard when they backed the censoring of graduation speeches with Christian undertones prepared and delivered by students. If the student giving a speech at a school graduation wants to thank God or Allah or Buddha, they should be allowed to do so; I don't see how that equates to government sponsored religion.

That being said, I'm going to go hide under my bed and piss my pants NORM style.

I think you're more worried about forced Sharia law than I am. You've actually thought out scenarios in which it could happen, and how grateful you are the ACLU is there to defend you from it. Does that make you a pants pisser?

I am worried about it. But I don't propose bombing countries on the other side of the planet to stop it and "keep us safe". In fact, with our borders wide open and immigration unchecked, common sense dictates that the more we bomb over there, the more refugies will come over here, and therefore a larger population will exist that wants Sharia Law enforced here.

There is a level of vigilance that must be maintained to prevent Sharia Law from being accepted in the United States, and it has nothing to do with the US Military, martial law excepted.

As long as Separation of Church and State is not undone by the Evangelicals seeking to dismantle it, Sharia Law can never gain a foothold.

Yes it is the "a few bad apples" line of thinking, but if Sep of Church and State keeps public prayer out of graduation ceremonies, it also keeps the claim of a muslim being able to beat his wife out of our courtroom.

300 million Americans, the vast majority Christians....any you worry about Muslims imposing Sharia Law???
Get a life.

The ACLU has always protected the freedoms of ALL Americans. That's why the mouth breathers hate them so much.

300 million Americans, the vast majority Christians....any you worry about Muslims imposing Sharia Law???
Get a life.

It's all one big issue Danni. It's all one issue of someone else's religion imposed on me, regardless of source.
I typically don't break it out. Truthfully, there's a much larger chance that a fundie pharmacist will refuse to sell my wife birth control than there is a Muslim grocer who will refuse to sell me a pork chop.

Today though, I was making the claim that those who want to "fight them over there to not fight them over here", should be more supportive of the ACLU's efforts.

"300 million Americans, the vast majority Christians....any you worry about Muslims imposing Sharia Law???
Get a life."
--DANNI

Now DANNI, just because NORM is worried about Sharia law being forced on us doesn't mean he needs to get a life, though he could use a mop.

Now wait a minute NORM, I thought worrying about muslims forcing Sharia law on us equated to pissing one's pants and hiding under one's bed?

I didn't say that. I'm responding to the claim by the far Right that if we pull our military out of Iraq, that the Muslims will follow us back over here and destroy America.
I'm saying that can't happen if we're vigilent.


That you would equate a student thanking God in their graduation speech to a muslim wanting to beat his wife almost surprises me.

I didn't equate them at all. I'm saying that, unfortunately, that's the way Separation of Church and State has to be, that to ban the worst behaviors, a lot of good behaviors get banned as well.

That's why the mouth breathers hate them so much.

What is a "mouth breather"?

NORM, really, I'm just messin' with ya. I'm sure you're a great guy in person, probably someone I could get along with, even if you don't think the same thing about me. >:D

But a little advice for ya. Next time you equate worrying about something to pissing ones pants, don't later say, "I am worried about it." It just gives jerks like me ammo.

"What is a "mouth breather"?"

First cousin to a knuckle dragger.

Hans

so the mouth breathers and the knuckle draggers are related.

Neanderthal or caveman? Is that the jist of it?

A Mouth Breather is the Opposite of an Ass Breather. You know they breathe out of their Mouths instead of their assholes. Just an FYI

Larry

A Mouth Breather is the Opposite of an Ass Breather. You know they breathe out of their Mouths instead of their assholes. Just an FYI

Larry

"Neanderthal or caveman? Is that the jist of it?"

Yep.

Hans

Thanks LoD, I'll keep that in mind...

As a supporter of the ACLU since We The People gassed Caryl Chessman in 1960 - and as a local chapter leader - I must stress the admirably foolish consistency of a body to defend the free speech of Nazis, Klans, Limbaughs and now gun nuts as well as social reformers.

I suspect ACLU leadership could think through with more care an issue which courts have settled: that the Second Amendment gives states the right to form militias and not each paranoid home owner the right to an arsenal of post-1883 weapons in his/her home. herm

Is the general consensus here that guns are not the evil that I have been led to believe they are from the liberal side of the aisle?

From the posts in this thread one may get the impression that gun ownership is becoming more mainstream and acceptable.

I expected this thread to be filled with posts about how "crazy" Texas is for allowing people to carry guns at all, and, that the ACLU went over the line, (like all the blogs when the ACLU defended the KKK). I must admit that this is a little surprising to me, and quite refreshing.

I have been a bit liberal minded all my life, much to the chagrin of other liberals I know. And, one of the "sticky" opinions that I have always had is a firm belief in gun ownership rights, (that, and a strong military).

I guess GWB was good for something after-all: Scaring the liberals into arming themselves!

I spoke too soon....

Thanks HERM...

"Gun nuts"?...

Let me think hard for a proper retort...

Idiot.

No... Wait... I meant Jack-off...

Yeah that's it: Jack-off.

Oh and this...

"not each paranoid home owner the right to an arsenal of post-1883 weapons in his/her home"...

...Jack-off.

"But what about an Air Force? Since Air Force is not in the Constitution the Congress can not provide funding for it, right? No, because the elastice clause expands the powr of congress to provide for different Branches of the Millitary."

Nice way to put it!

Spud is agree wif Member here.

It only makes sense to re-interpret the Constitution in order to expand the definitions of certain Articles in order to keep up with technological and moral evolution but they have no right to infringe upon or lessen those articles.

Of course the really funny thing here is the puzzled looks on the righty tighty faces.

The ACLU is supporting the NRA?!

Whaaaa?!!

How are they gonna find a way to support the NRA while dissing the ACLU here?

Spud imagines they'll find a way...

"Anyhow, good for the ACLU on not being total left wing nut jobs."

Live or Die seems okay with it.

That it aside from a jab at the ACLU trying to subvert religion?

Hmmph! Spud is almost disapointed by the lack of wing-nutty responses on this thread. It's like this place is growing up or something.

Wot's up with that?

Be Well.

the lack of wing-nutty responses on this thread.

There are few wing-nutty responses to this because thinking of the ACLU and the NRA as partners using the Constitution to defend one of their sacred cows has caused critical mass in their brains. Nobody has yet told them how to deal with this apparent contradiction in dogma and they don't want their heads to explode thinking about it.

The original political odd couple. gotta agree with both though. I honestly dont understand how its constitutional to take away ANYONES gun rights felon or not, they dont make rules with other amendments like "oh youre a felon, you have no right to a speedy trial we dont have to get a warrant for anything you forfeited that when you broke the law the first time" doesnt happen with other amendments, why does it happen with the 2nd? its nonsense.

It needs to be pointed out yet once more that about the only thing all ACLUers agree on is a respect for constitutionally guaranteed rights. We do not all agree that the Second Amendment gives Texans the right to blow away their neighbors willy-nilly, but personally I see some merit in letting District of Columbia residents defend their homes if police is unable (or unwilling) to do so.

A dogma is a bitch with a litter of pups. herm

I have no need for a gun whatsoever. I outgrew muscle cars and things that go boom around age 21.
I have no problem with people having as many guns as they want. I do have a problem with the NRA because they have purposefully turned this into an us vs. them issue because that's how they increase membership.
EVERYONE is for reasonable limits and regulations on gun ownership.
Nobody wants their neighbor popping off rounds at 3 AM. Nobody wants their neighbor to park a loaded howitzer on their lawn "just in case" the Russians invade.
I believe that if someone commits a crime with a gun then they should be put in prison for life. I believe that if your kid gets ahold of your gun and commits a crime then YOU should be put in prison for life. I bet the NRA would block that legislation.

this is an unusual developement.
While I thank the ACLU for the efforts in this particular issue, I will not let my guard down around them.
The ACLU must have some ulterior motive. Why have they ignored the 2nd Amendment for decades then suddenly come out to support this one individual case?

Election time is comming up, so maybe they want to project the image that liberals are not the gun-grabbers everyone believes (meanwhile as HB 1022 marches along its way to ban all semi-auto longs, where is the ACLU to fight that?)
I could be mistaken, but didn't the ACLU come to Rush Limbaugh's defense in the fall of 2004 (right around election time?)
Hmmmmmmmm.

If the ACLU starts supporting gun rights with the same fervor they use to attack Jews, Christians, police and the military I'll change my opinion of them. Until that happens I will consider their support in this case to be some sort of diversionary tactic.

The ACLU must have some ulterior motive. Why have they ignored the 2nd Amendment for decades then suddenly come out to support this one individual case?

...because as we all know, gun rights have been under assault for decades. Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket.

If the ACLU starts supporting gun rights with the same fervor they use to attack Jews, Christians, police and the military I'll change my opinion of them.

Any proof of this? I didn't think so. I thought the ACLU was full of Jews? That's the bullshit line that right wingers usually spew.

...because as we all know, gun rights have been under assault for decades. Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket.


are you serious? gun rights have not been under assault?
Then how come in my state alone I do not have the right to:

1)own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
2)carry a firearm to defend myself
3)have a firearm in my vehicle to defend myself
4)possess a rifle with a barrel less than 16"
5)possess a shotgun with a barrel less than 18"
6)possess a sound suppressor
7)possess a pistol longer than 12" overall
8)possess tracer ammo
9)possess steel-core ammo
10)possess automatic or burst capable recievers
11)possess teflon coated bullets because the Brady Campaign somehow tricked people into believing that the coatings used on frying pans can magically penetrate body armor.
12)possess ammuntion in a vehicle.
13)possess ammunition in public place.

additionally, I have to get the police chief's permission to buy a firearm, take a pistol course before buying a handgun, and register all firearms with police even though its none of their fucking business what guns I own for lawful purposes.
If you think these laws aren't restrictive enough take a look at California. Its even worse there.

god forbid someone shoots a person in self-defense here because the he will end up in jail no matter what the circumstances were.


As we speak, House Bill 1022 is moving foward to ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.








oh yeah, but gun rights aren't under attack. Its all my fucking imagination.

didnt read the whole thread so I'll appologize in advance; in the event I have stepped on someone's post...


"Or, as Charles A. Rosenthal Jr., the district attorney of Harris County, which includes Houston, argued, "The presumption of innocence does not make the person innocent."


LOL

Both chilling and ironic.... would be funny if it didn't involve guilt and innocence...in a criminal case.

This "man" is technically right in a legal sense...Unfortunately he is also the guy who gets to decide wheather to prosecute these "criminals" or not...


Hell,,, if they are innocent they have nothing to worry about right?

LOL

I am glad the 'perp' in this story has got some heavy hitters defending him...

I also hope he is one of those guys that said "hell I have nothing to hide,,,the NSA and the Fbi can tap my phones and serch my home without judicial oversight"...

THAT would be some serious karma...and righteous justice...

"Then how come in my state alone ..."

Time to move to another state?

Or is that just all your fucking imagination?

Hans

"Then how come in my state alone ..."

Time to move to another state?

Or is that just all your fucking imagination?

Hans



So I move to another state and in a few years that state becomes full of liberal nitwits who hate guns who got voted into power by illegal aliens because they promised to give them free money.
Then what? Keep moving?
What about federal laws? you cant run from those. If HB1022 passes, I am fucked no matter where I go.

"Then what? Keep moving?"

Sure. Why not?

"I am fucked no matter where I go."

Your words, not mine.

Hans

"We do not all agree that the Second Amendment gives Texans the right to blow away their neighbors willy-nilly"... HERM

I really don't think anyone is advocating that. And, the two instances were this could apply have more to it than you give credit for, though both instances were none-the-less tragic.



"While I thank the ACLU for the efforts in this particular issue, I will not let my guard down around them.
The ACLU must have some ulterior motive. Why have they ignored the 2nd Amendment for decades then suddenly come out to support this one individual case?" ... FUCK YOU

The ACLU hasn't been fighting those causes because they are going through the constitutional channels to pass laws that then would be constitutional, thereby not violating American Civil Liberties...

Having said this, I agree, the recent laws passed on firearm ownership are oppressive knee-jerk legislation designed to bolster the image of a few weak politicians while eroding the rights of the many, (this is nothing new unfortunately)



"Election time is comming up, so maybe they want to project the image that liberals are not the gun-grabbers everyone believes (meanwhile as HB 1022 marches along its way to ban all semi-auto longs, where is the ACLU to fight that?)
I could be mistaken, but didn't the ACLU come to Rush Limbaugh's defense in the fall of 2004 (right around election time?)
Hmmmmmmmm." ... FUCK YOU

"Hmmmmmm" is right ... Except that the ACLU took to Rush's defense in January 2004, Maybe I'm not familiar with the elections that go on that time of year ... For that matter, which elections are you talking about in this instance?
Hmmmmmm ... .

"I am fucked no matter where I go."

You want a gun so bad then enlist and go help in the Christian Crusade for oil.
Whining about those evil libruls taking away your guns is the way most righties pretend they are men. They sit at computer keyboards and say "bring it on" but then want other folk's kids to do the dangerous part. That's because they are really just pretenders. The right is full of pretenders who think that talking tough from the safety of home prevents others from noticing that they generally have wet pants.

additionally, I have to get the police chief's permission to buy a firearm, take a pistol course before buying a handgun, and register all firearms with police even though its none of their fucking business what guns I own for lawful purposes

Doesn't sound much different from getting a drivers license and registering a vehicle. I realize it is a pain in the ass but the ownership of property is getting to be a bigger pain in the ass all the way around. Not just with guns.....and it isn't about them taking your guns away IMO. It is just about bigger government pretending to help.

"I have to get the police chief's permission to buy a firearm"

Must not live around here.

ACLU has defended the KKK, Rush Limbaugh, Steve Forbes, the tobacco industry, and now gun rights. Still the righties think of it as a left wing organization. That is because the right has never grasped the concept of American Freedom.

"You want a gun so bad then enlist and go help in the Christian Crusade for oil.
Whining about those evil libruls taking away your guns is the way most righties pretend they are men. They sit at computer keyboards and say "bring it on" but then want other folk's kids to do the dangerous part. That's because they are really just pretenders. The right is full of pretenders who think that talking tough from the safety of home prevents others from noticing that they generally have wet pants." ... DANNI

What exactly does this have to do with FUCKYOU's statement about oppressive gun laws? Just more righty/lefty, us/them crap? I know a lot of conservatives, and have found very few to be "pussys", and many of them have actually fought in battle, (which I am relieved to say that I have not). And, while I agree that the Republican Party isn't serving the best interests of America right now, this is a point of view echoed by a lot of conservative as-well.

Self defense is the issue, and while I m sure that we all agree that there are certain weapons that the average person doesn't need to possess, the idea that a small vocal group has convinced the masses that guns are unsafe and need to be regulated, and that we as Americans need to be kept safe from them, because we aren't mature enough to handle firearms is absurd. Whether it's home invasion or tyranny the need for adequate self defense and the desire to be secure is part of American life. And, the belief that guns shouldn't be regulated/restricted by the very government for which they could be used to protect ourselves from isn't a partisan ideology.



"ACLU has defended the KKK, Rush Limbaugh, Steve Forbes, the tobacco industry, and now gun rights. Still the righties think of it as a left wing organization. That is because the right has never grasped the concept of American Freedom" ... BUFFALO BOB

I think that it is a cop-out to say that "conservatives don't understand American freedom", I think that they believe in that freedom just like you and I; they just feel that the moral health of a country coincides with said country's overall health. And, while I agree with this in theory, the effect this has upon civil liberties is, (to me, and liberals in general I think), unacceptable.

However, I think that conservatives don't grasp the ideology of the ACLU: they don't play favorites; they serve only the Bill of Rights. This is often at odds with the conservative moral ideology, and at times liberal ideology as-well. And, just as the conservatives feel that the ACLU is a liberal watchdog group, I think that liberals feel the same way, and this is just not the case.

The issue should be clear hear....

The law breakers in this case were the POLICE (i.e. the government)....

that is why the ACLU is involved.... It is always the reason the ACLU gets involved...

It seems that fact is hard to stomach for some, particularly those that think the government is generally always right...