If the ACLU were pro-gun-rights, would you join?
- Thread starter azurefly
- Start date
Blackwater OPS
New member
MeekandMild
lol, this is the only thing you said which I agree with.
lol, this is the only thing you said which I agree with.
MeekAndMild
New member
I'm terribly sorry, but I just don't see the fourteenth being written to repurpose the bill of rights so as to prevent communities from effectively silencing the Klan. If that were true don't you think the states of the former confederacy would have voted to ratify it first rather than last? You'll have to do better than that to convince me to join the ACLU.
Warning, this is a tangent here, not related to the topic at hand but very much related to RKBA. First, look at this list of countries which have signed the UN protocol regarding small arms trade http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_signatures_firearms.html
Now, here is the question. Do you think a sovereign nation such as the US should be bound by such a treaty unless it is consistent with their constitution and they ratify it?
Blackwater, I don't agree with a lot that I say either. But I'll argue for my right to say it.
Warning, this is a tangent here, not related to the topic at hand but very much related to RKBA. First, look at this list of countries which have signed the UN protocol regarding small arms trade http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_signatures_firearms.html
Now, here is the question. Do you think a sovereign nation such as the US should be bound by such a treaty unless it is consistent with their constitution and they ratify it?
Blackwater, I don't agree with a lot that I say either. But I'll argue for my right to say it.
Convince you to join the ACLU?? Why on earth would I want to do that? Nevermind...moot point.
You posted a comment about how the ACLU seems to want to apply the Bill of Rights to local and state governments and I'm just tellin' you why that is so. You don't like the 14th Amendment, work to get it repealed. As things stand it is in the Constitution so we can't just ignore it.
You posted a comment about how the ACLU seems to want to apply the Bill of Rights to local and state governments and I'm just tellin' you why that is so. You don't like the 14th Amendment, work to get it repealed. As things stand it is in the Constitution so we can't just ignore it.
MeekAndMild
New member
OK, that is a false attribution. Perhaps you misread my post. Let me restate the pertinent point.
I don't see how the original intent of the fourteenth amendment was to assure that the Klan maintained free speech. I really can't see how the lawmakers who had just fought a war in large part to end slavery would have done anything to assure violent racists maintained that privilage.
To me this sounds like an unintended consequence which occurred when the courts started broadening their interpretation of the 14th. But if I'm wrong I'd appreciate you showing me some archival material from the 1860's and 1870's to that effect.
M&M,
First off, I was using the burning necklaces as a for instance, I was not implying that I condone such acts nor would I willingly participate in said acts under any normal circumstances. It is not something I go around saying, "This is what i'd do if someone threatened my family". It was just an example that even though I may feel like doing it in that traumatic circumstance, I would hope that I would not CHOOSE to perform the act. However the threatening of one's family is a traumatic thing in every respect and I cannot fathom what my feelings or actions would be under that kind of stress. I was not representing it alongside any political organization.
I will also agree that pedophillia can be in some cases a learned defective personality traight. But I still maintain the position that it is something the subject chooses to engage in. If he or she has learned that such behavior is acceptable in some way, that would be something to consider for leniency in sentencing if they are caught. And anyway, I believe it is the common stance that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Which means that even though pedophillia may be something the individual has learned and accepted as common practice, it should still be considered that the traumatic aftermath should be very apparent even to a pedophile that it is damaging to children. And when they choose to continue after that blatant fact it becomes more apparent that they don't care what their actions do to their victims.
Anyway I guess both our points of view are correct in different senses, my core belief though is that NAMBLA is primarily evil on the fact that I have heard of nothing else they support other than child abuse. The fact that even some of the ACLU supports them is reprehensible to those that support them within the ACLU, and to those who don't, yet allow that kind of negligence within their own organization. In other words, if most members of the ACLU do not support NAMBLA, they don't seem to be doing much to stop members that do. It was my understanding, and possibly mistakenly so, that organizations such as the ACLU or NAACP or whatever, were united under one specific goal. I would have thought that members of said organizations that allowed their organizations name to be associated with extremist views like NAMBLA's, it would be grounds for disciplinary action within that organization. That is why I would never have anything to do with them.
P.S. And thankyou for the intelligent debate, it's rare I get to participate in one on my limited amount of knowledge.
First off, I was using the burning necklaces as a for instance, I was not implying that I condone such acts nor would I willingly participate in said acts under any normal circumstances. It is not something I go around saying, "This is what i'd do if someone threatened my family". It was just an example that even though I may feel like doing it in that traumatic circumstance, I would hope that I would not CHOOSE to perform the act. However the threatening of one's family is a traumatic thing in every respect and I cannot fathom what my feelings or actions would be under that kind of stress. I was not representing it alongside any political organization.
I will also agree that pedophillia can be in some cases a learned defective personality traight. But I still maintain the position that it is something the subject chooses to engage in. If he or she has learned that such behavior is acceptable in some way, that would be something to consider for leniency in sentencing if they are caught. And anyway, I believe it is the common stance that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Which means that even though pedophillia may be something the individual has learned and accepted as common practice, it should still be considered that the traumatic aftermath should be very apparent even to a pedophile that it is damaging to children. And when they choose to continue after that blatant fact it becomes more apparent that they don't care what their actions do to their victims.
Anyway I guess both our points of view are correct in different senses, my core belief though is that NAMBLA is primarily evil on the fact that I have heard of nothing else they support other than child abuse. The fact that even some of the ACLU supports them is reprehensible to those that support them within the ACLU, and to those who don't, yet allow that kind of negligence within their own organization. In other words, if most members of the ACLU do not support NAMBLA, they don't seem to be doing much to stop members that do. It was my understanding, and possibly mistakenly so, that organizations such as the ACLU or NAACP or whatever, were united under one specific goal. I would have thought that members of said organizations that allowed their organizations name to be associated with extremist views like NAMBLA's, it would be grounds for disciplinary action within that organization. That is why I would never have anything to do with them.
P.S. And thankyou for the intelligent debate, it's rare I get to participate in one on my limited amount of knowledge.
Last edited:
MeekAndMild
New member
Glock, I think I've confused you with psychobabble. Sorry. I agree with you about NAMBLA and I think that their behavior is learned, as opposed to 'instinctive' and as voluntary opposed to something they can't help. They also happen to be one group that should not have free speech, except to gripe about the prison food.
Concerning the neckacing comment, I merely used it as a convenient example of a type of 'free speech' where the common law and local community would normally stop the problem without need to invoke the full power of the Federal government.
Be that as it may, would you agree that the original intent might be stretched just a tiny little bit out of focus when it is used to argue that the Klan is an organization which is entitled to be treated by state and local governments as anything but a criminal conspiracy?
Concerning the neckacing comment, I merely used it as a convenient example of a type of 'free speech' where the common law and local community would normally stop the problem without need to invoke the full power of the Federal government.
Well, my thought was the interpretation given for the first century or so was that the 14th was designed to protect the citizenship of former slaves.
Be that as it may, would you agree that the original intent might be stretched just a tiny little bit out of focus when it is used to argue that the Klan is an organization which is entitled to be treated by state and local governments as anything but a criminal conspiracy?
Gary Conner
New member
Hello123 is right!
The ACLU consists almost entirely of Ruth Bader Ginsburg type attorney/activists, whose main goal in life, is to work as hard as possible to make certain that federal tax dollars are utilized, for "eclectic type artists" to present "artwork" such as paintings of lesbian nuns on ice skates urinating on crosses.
Their other goal, is to then do their best to harrass lucid citizens who have the audacity to try and depict the Christ Child in a manger scene, by claiming it is an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" by the city.
I think the entrance requirement to the ACLU, is to be as unhappy, and mean spirited as possible, and possess a desire to not see anhone enjoy themselves, other than fellow Globalist Left Wing Stalinist worshipers.
It seems the only time they are happy, is when causing legal and financial misery to Boy Scout troops, church members, or self employed business people.
To me it appears, they only believe in free "politically correct" speach. To me, whatever is bad for the United States seems to be the main goal of that organization.
I wouldn't contribute 15 cents in Mexican change to the ACLU on Christmas Day, much less join them.
The ACLU consists almost entirely of Ruth Bader Ginsburg type attorney/activists, whose main goal in life, is to work as hard as possible to make certain that federal tax dollars are utilized, for "eclectic type artists" to present "artwork" such as paintings of lesbian nuns on ice skates urinating on crosses.
Their other goal, is to then do their best to harrass lucid citizens who have the audacity to try and depict the Christ Child in a manger scene, by claiming it is an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" by the city.
I think the entrance requirement to the ACLU, is to be as unhappy, and mean spirited as possible, and possess a desire to not see anhone enjoy themselves, other than fellow Globalist Left Wing Stalinist worshipers.
It seems the only time they are happy, is when causing legal and financial misery to Boy Scout troops, church members, or self employed business people.
To me it appears, they only believe in free "politically correct" speach. To me, whatever is bad for the United States seems to be the main goal of that organization.
I wouldn't contribute 15 cents in Mexican change to the ACLU on Christmas Day, much less join them.
