hope they're right

My wife forgot her ID when we were flying. They let her on with a library card and her rec. center ID.

F*CK YEAH, ACLU

Hopefully the rest of the world will follow when they remember that liquid bombs are incredibly hard/impossible to create on a farkin' plane. Things like nail clippers... I could do more damage with the bloody plastic forks they hand out.

There are days I hate the ACLU. This is not one of them.

dj_bigbird: There are days I hate the ACLU. This is not one of them.

Some of the individual things they do are contemptible, but that comes with the mission statement. Thank Marduk that someone cares enough to protect the rights of even the worst of us.*

*2nd Amendment need not apply.

too little, waaaaay too late.

Occam's Chainsaw: dj_bigbird: There are days I hate the ACLU. This is not one of them.

Some of the individual things they do are contemptible, but that comes with the mission statement. Thank Marduk that someone cares enough to protect the rights of even the worst of us.*

*2nd Amendment need not apply.

Please elaborate on which incidents specifically caused you to hate the ACLU and/or which you consider "contemptible".

Kthx

bobbette: Please elaborate on which incidents specifically caused you to hate the ACLU and/or which you consider "contemptible".

I consider the defense of white supremacists contemptible. And necessary for the preservation of a free and just state.

bobbette: Please elaborate on which incidents specifically caused you to hate the ACLU and/or which you consider "contemptible".

Kthx

Completely ignoring the Second Amendment even thought the SCOTUS states that it represents a personal right is disingenuous.

Occam's Chainsaw: bobbette: Please elaborate on which incidents specifically caused you to hate the ACLU and/or which you consider "contemptible".

I consider the defense of white supremacists contemptible. And necessary for the preservation of a free and just state.

but not the Boy Scouts, 'cause those bastards had it coming, right?

Occam's Chainsaw: bobbette: Please elaborate on which incidents specifically caused you to hate the ACLU and/or which you consider "contemptible".

I consider the defense of white supremacists contemptible. And necessary for the preservation of a free and just state.

So why do you hate the organization that helps preserve a free and just state? Your position is inconsistent.

R.A.Danny: bobbette: Please elaborate on which incidents specifically caused you to hate the ACLU and/or which you consider "contemptible".

Kthx

Completely ignoring the Second Amendment even thought the SCOTUS states that it represents a personal right is disingenuous.

What bastards. It's not as if there's some sort of national rifle association to fight for people's 2nd Amendment rights, or anything like that.

bobbette: Occam's Chainsaw: bobbette: Please elaborate on which incidents specifically caused you to hate the ACLU and/or which you consider "contemptible".

I consider the defense of white supremacists contemptible. And necessary for the preservation of a free and just state.

So why do you hate the organization that helps preserve a free and just state? Your position is inconsistent.

Is everything black and white in your world, or are you just picking a fight that isn't there? One person said that there are days they hate the ACLU. Hell, there are days I hate my mother.

Naman: R.A.Danny: bobbette: Please elaborate on which incidents specifically caused you to hate the ACLU and/or which you consider "contemptible".

Kthx

Completely ignoring the Second Amendment even thought the SCOTUS states that it represents a personal right is disingenuous.

What bastards. It's not as if there's some sort of national rifle association to fight for people's 2nd Amendment rights, or anything like that.

That's all well and good, but they have stated that they do not believe the Second Amendment applies to the individual in the past.

Weaver95: but not the Boy Scouts, 'cause those bastards had it coming, right?

Their selective blindness irritates me to no end. See also: Amendment II, Constitution of the United States of America.

bobbette: So why do you hate the organization that helps preserve a free and just state? Your position is inconsistent.

Quote me. Show me where I ever said I hated them.

Naman: What bastards. It's not as if there's some sort of national rifle association to fight for people's 2nd Amendment rights, or anything like that.

There are other organizations that fight for the preservation of the 1st. And yet the ACLU won't hesitate to champion the cause. Why the 2nd and only the 2nd? Ideology of their membership.

From aclu.org (http://www.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/)

Heller Decision and the Second Amendment

So, we've been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU's stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn't catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.

They will fight any and every other right protected by The Constitution, its Amendments, and every other SCOTUS ruling. Once something is decided by the SCOTUS, it is their mission to uphold it, not pick and choose. That time has come to an end. They call Roe V Wade the law of the land, and that is not specifically enumerated in The Constitution (I'm pro choice, I am just using this as an example) not agreeing with a single ruling tarnishes their other work.

Occam's Chainsaw: Their selective blindness irritates me to no end. See also: Amendment II, Constitution of the United States of America.

The NRA's got that well good and covered, I doubt they'd want the ACLU's help anyway.

Weaver bringing up the boy scouts when trying to bash the ACLU...I must say, I'm shocked that this happened.

Occam's Chainsaw: Weaver95: but not the Boy Scouts, 'cause those bastards had it coming, right?

Their selective blindness irritates me to no end. See also: Amendment II, Constitution of the United States of America.

bobbette: So why do you hate the organization that helps preserve a free and just state? Your position is inconsistent.

Quote me. Show me where I ever said I hated them.

Naman: What bastards. It's not as if there's some sort of national rifle association to fight for people's 2nd Amendment rights, or anything like that.

There are other organizations that fight for the preservation of the 1st. And yet the ACLU won't hesitate to champion the cause. Why the 2nd and only the 2nd? Ideology of their membership.

OK, contempt is not a synonym for hate. That is my bad.

I'm singling you on this though. I think if you really believe in free speech without limits, you can't object to the ACLU defending Nazis (or Fred Phelps, or anyone.) Otherwise, you do believe in free speech with limits.

I believe in free speech with some, very carefully set out limits, specifically for hate crimes, but even I don't object to the ACLU defending everybody, since they're operating within the American definition of free speech.

Occam's Chainsaw:
*2nd Amendment need not apply.

"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."

Let me know when you sign up for the state militia, national guard, army reserves, etc. Until then, STFU.

/Don't know anything about you. If you are a member of the aforementioned groups, well... I look like a jackass, don't I?

bulldg4life: Weaver bringing up the boy scouts when trying to bash the ACLU...I must say, I'm shocked that this happened.

gee...the ACLU thinks Nazis good, Boy Scouts bad. and ya wonder why people don't trust 'em...

Weaver95: gee...the ACLU thinks Nazis good, Boy Scouts bad. and ya wonder why people don't trust 'em...

gee...the ACLU thinks freedom of expression good, government sponsorship of certain religions bad. and ya wonder why people think you're a nutjob when you frame the argument that way...

bulldg4life: Weaver95: gee...the ACLU thinks Nazis good, Boy Scouts bad. and ya wonder why people don't trust 'em...

gee...the ACLU thinks freedom of expression good, government sponsorship of certain religions bad. and ya wonder why people think you're a nutjob when you frame the argument that way...

No, I get it - the ACLU doesn't defend those icky boy scouts. But hey, the Nazis get their 1st amendment right to march protected. Personally, I think the only way you can resolve THAT logical paradox is if you starve your brain of oxygen for 20 minutes and kill off most of your higher brain functions...but whatever floats yer boat I guess.

Weaver95: bulldg4life: Weaver bringing up the boy scouts when trying to bash the ACLU...I must say, I'm shocked that this happened.

gee...the ACLU thinks Nazis good, Boy Scouts bad. and ya wonder why people don't trust 'em...

Way to completely misinterpret the case.

Weaver95: I think the only way you can resolve THAT logical paradox

It isn't a logical paradox unless you warp the situation in to something it isn't by intentionally distorting the facts of the case to create the narrative that you always push in ACLU threads.

I would say the greater quandary is why someone who has spent YEARS on this website advocating individual liberties finds the time to admonish a group whose sole purpose is to defend those individual liberties.

Of course, once people realize you are a disingenuous person who is incredibly biased on certain topics...the quandary disappears.

bobbette: I'm singling you on this though. I think if you really believe in free speech without limits, you can't object to the ACLU defending Nazis (or Fred Phelps, or anyone.) Otherwise, you do believe in free speech with limits.

Again, read back over what I said in this thread. Not who I'm quoting. They defend people that I wouldn't even spit on, because that comes with the territory of defending everyone's rights. It's their ideological bias that irks me.

Zombie Neurosurgeon: Let me know when you sign up for the state militia, national guard, army reserves, etc. Until then, STFU.

Hi there. I'm an able-bodied person of age 18-45, and my firearms are all well-maintained and in working order. That makes me a member of the militia.

If you can be drafted, you're in the militia. And the right is reserved by the people, not by the states or the militia. And the SCOTUS agrees with me. (In the worst manner possible, but still.)

GAT_00: Weaver95: bulldg4life: Weaver bringing up the boy scouts when trying to bash the ACLU...I must say, I'm shocked that this happened.

gee...the ACLU thinks Nazis good, Boy Scouts bad. and ya wonder why people don't trust 'em...

Way to completely misinterpret the case.

that's the ACLU for you - logic and consistancy isn't exactly on their agenda.

Weaver95: that's the ACLU for you - logic and consistancy isn't exactly on their agenda.

Do you have days where you just copy and paste stuff from FreeRep because you are bored and Limbaugh isn't on yet?

Occam's Chainsaw: Hi there. I'm an able-bodied person of age 18-45, and my firearms are all well-maintained and in working order. That makes me a member of the militia.

Where exactly is the militia limited by age in the Constitution? Or the requirement to be able-bodied? Or the quality of your firearms?

So I don't quite understand your statement.

However, this thread is also not about the 2nd Amendment, so everyone should probably get back on topic.

bobbette: I'm singling you on this though. I think if you really believe in free speech without limits, you can't object to the ACLU defending Nazis (or Fred Phelps, or anyone.) Otherwise, you do believe in free speech with limits.

Occam's Chainsaw didn't say that. He was quoting dj_bigbird. Re-read the thread.

Weaver95: that's the ACLU for you - logic and consistancy isn't exactly on their agenda.

*facepalm*

Did you even read what I wrote? Hint: I'm not criticizing the ACLU.

Occam's Chainsaw:
Hi there. I'm an able-bodied person of age 18-45, and my firearms are all well-maintained and in working order. That makes me a member of the militia.

If you can be drafted, you're in the militia. And the right is reserved by the people, not by the states or the militia. And the SCOTUS agrees with me. (In the worst manner possible, but still.)

Um, there's still the part about well regulated. That's the part that people always forget about. Also, blacks, women, the elderly and people with disabilities shouldn't be protected by the 2nd amendment, right?

bulldg4life: Weaver95: that's the ACLU for you - logic and consistancy isn't exactly on their agenda.

Do you have days where you just copy and paste stuff from FreeRep because you are bored and Limbaugh isn't on yet?

I think that if your organization is going to take a stand in defense of the 1st amendment, then you should stick to it. The ACLU reversed itself and proved themselves hypocritical when they defended the Nazis and fought against the BSA over what amounts to freedom of expression.

Weaver95: fought against the BSA over what amounts to freedom of expression.

No, the government giving money to an organization which requires you to give an oath to God as part of joining that organization is not freedom of expression.

Since I know you are smart enough to know that...it depresses me slightly that you continue to argue this point disingenuously.

Well, since the article mentions the ACLU, let's have a firefight about that. Forget the shiat-treatment of all travelers by the TSA and their search for non-existent liquid explosives and, of course, small amounts of pot.fark all of you.

stinieroo: Well, since the article mentions the ACLU, let's have a firefight about that. Forget the shiat-treatment of all travelers by the TSA and their search for non-existent liquid explosives and, of course, small amounts of pot.fark all of you.

It's not fun if we just argue about what TFA states. So far we've got a 1st amendment ACLU fight going on and I'll try my damndest to bring in a 2nd amendment fight for no apparent reason. The anti-TSA fight is no fun. Who's going to stand up for them? If anyone puts up an honest and decent arguement for the TSA I will tip my hat to them.

Weaver95: bulldg4life: Weaver95: that's the ACLU for you - logic and consistancy isn't exactly on their agenda.

Do you have days where you just copy and paste stuff from FreeRep because you are bored and Limbaugh isn't on yet?

I think that if your organization is going to take a stand in defense of the 1st amendment, then you should stick to it. The ACLU reversed itself and proved themselves hypocritical when they defended the Nazis and fought against the BSA over what amounts to freedom of expression.

By your idiotic argument, the ACLU would have ruled against any of the civil rights lawsuits and held up "Separate but Equal." But go ahead and keep your idiotic talking points. I'll be over here laughing at you.

bulldg4life: Weaver95: fought against the BSA over what amounts to freedom of expression.

No, the government giving money to an organization which requires you to give an oath to God as part of joining that organization is not freedom of expression..

you mean like...Congress?

Zombie Neurosurgeon: stinieroo: Well, since the article mentions the ACLU, let's have a firefight about that. Forget the shiat-treatment of all travelers by the TSA and their search for non-existent liquid explosives and, of course, small amounts of pot.fark all of you.

It's not fun if we just argue about what TFA states. So far we've got a 1st amendment ACLU fight going on and I'll try my damndest to bring in a 2nd amendment fight for no apparent reason. The anti-TSA fight is no fun. Who's going to stand up for them? If anyone puts up an honest and decent arguement for the TSA I will tip my hat to them.

We could have 2,500 posts of "TSA Sucks!" with one troll defending cops that shoot handcuffed hippies, but that wouldn't be nearly as fun.

R.A.Danny: Zombie Neurosurgeon: stinieroo: Well, since the article mentions the ACLU, let's have a firefight about that. Forget the shiat-treatment of all travelers by the TSA and their search for non-existent liquid explosives and, of course, small amounts of pot.fark all of you.

It's not fun if we just argue about what TFA states. So far we've got a 1st amendment ACLU fight going on and I'll try my damndest to bring in a 2nd amendment fight for no apparent reason. The anti-TSA fight is no fun. Who's going to stand up for them? If anyone puts up an honest and decent arguement for the TSA I will tip my hat to them.

We could have 2,500 posts of "TSA Sucks!" with one troll defending cops that shoot handcuffed hippies, but that wouldn't be nearly as fun.

Exactly. There needs to be someone to stand up for the little guy. Or the er, -lazy, kind of fat guy who likes to be in a position of power regardless of how small that power is- guy. Who will defend my right to be an asshole when given the chance? Why aren't people talking about a 28th amendment?

"The rights and feelings of a citizen of the United States shall not be infringed regardless of douchebaggery".

Weaver95: you mean like...Congress?

Representatives and elected officials aren't required to say the "So help me God" part.

But sure, run with that.

R.A.Danny: Completely ignoring the Second Amendment even thought the SCOTUS states that it represents a personal right is disingenuous.

*sigh*

ACLU offices routinely refer Second Amendment cases to the NRA who has the resources and special expertise to defend EXACTLY those cases. It's actually a good working relationship.

Zombie Neurosurgeon: Who's going to stand up for them?

oh, i think i can take a decent crack at it...

Zombie Neurosurgeon: If anyone puts up an honest and decent arguement for the TSA I will tip my hat to them.

dammit. never mind

GAT_00: Where exactly is the militia limited by age in the Constitution? Or the requirement to be able-bodied? Or the quality of your firearms?

So I don't quite understand your statement.

I'm giving the definition of "well-regulated".

Zombie Neurosurgeon: Um, there's still the part about well regulated. That's the part that people always forget about. Also, blacks, women, the elderly and people with disabilities shouldn't be protected by the 2nd amendment, right?

Is there something inherent in being black, female, aged, or disabled that prevents you from safely and correctly possessing, maintaining, and operating a firearm? No? Then you still fall under the auspices of "well-regulated". The term doesn't mean what you think it means. The only reason I gave the age designation is because (IIRC) there's previous legalese on the books that defines the militia as all able-bodied males 18-45. Obviously restricting it to males is discriminatory, and the upper age limit would also be discriminatory and would be struck down if somehow someone tried to restrict an able-bodied elderly person's access to firearms.

And once again, the right is reserved by the people, not the militias, not the states, not the fed. The SCOTUS agrees with me.

Megain: Zombie Neurosurgeon: Who's going to stand up for them?

oh, i think i can take a decent crack at it...

Zombie Neurosurgeon: If anyone puts up an honest and decent arguement for the TSA I will tip my hat to them.

dammit. never mind

Well, the dishonest defense of the TSA is fairly simple:

THE TSA PROTECTS YOU FROM AL QAEDA, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND POLAR BEARS! WITHOUT THEM YOU'D BE OVERRUN BY NUCLEAR WEAPON-WIELDING JIHADISTS FROM THE NORTH POLE EVERY DAY! THE TSA PROTECTS AGAINST SWINE FLU, SARS, HIV, TEH GAY AND THE DREADED ANTI-AMERICANISM DISEASE! THEY ARE THE ONLY THING KEEPING YOUR ORGANS FROM JUMPING OUT OF YOUR BODY AND STRANGLING YOU, YOUR DAUGHTER AND THAT CUTE FLIGHT ATTENDANT EVERY TIME YOU FLY!

Occam's Chainsaw: The only reason I gave the age designation is because (IIRC) there's previous legalese on the books that defines the militia as all able-bodied males 18-45.

From Wikipedia (new window):

The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)

And as you implied, "well regulated" isn't meant as "lots of rules and limitations", they wanted a militia that could be called upon and be effective, which meant for a long time you were expected to be proficient with firearms if you were in that group.

Oh, Weaver fled when I pointed out he was standing against the Civil Rights era? I guess he didn't want another thread where he attacked MLK.

itsdan: Occam's Chainsaw: The only reason I gave the age designation is because (IIRC) there's previous legalese on the books that defines the militia as all able-bodied males 18-45.

From Wikipedia (new window):

The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)

And as you implied, "well regulated" isn't meant as "lots of rules and limitations", they wanted a militia that could be called upon and be effective, which meant for a long time you were expected to be proficient with firearms if you were in that group.

So from a legal standpoint, anyone over the age of 45, any female and any disabled person should not be protected by the 2nd amendment? I'm sure there's some crotchety old grandma with one leg out there who would like to have a word with you.

Also, why are people who are part of the US armed forces allowed to own private handguns? I would think that they are excluded from the militia clause as well?

Zombie Neurosurgeon: So from a legal standpoint, anyone over the age of 45, any female and any disabled person should not be protected by the 2nd amendment? I'm sure there's some crotchety old grandma with one leg out there who would like to have a word with you.

Also, why are people who are part of the US armed forces allowed to own private handguns? I would think that they are excluded from the militia clause as well?

Short answer: ERA.
Long answer: is there something inherent in being 46+, female, an active duty member of the military, or disabled that prevents you from owning, maintaining, and operating a firearm in a safe and lawful manner? Do any of the above statuses cause you to cease being part of "the people"? No? Then infringing upon those groups' 2nd Amendment rights would be prejudicial and therefore illegal. Next?