Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: ACLU press release

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011

    ACLU press release

    Looks like the ACLU is looking into the militarization of the police force.
    http://www.aclu.org/militarization
    Last edited by beebobby; 03-07-2013 at 09:23 PM.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I'm sorta glad the ACLU is taking this on. While I think they generally support big government, if this bothers them, then maybe there is still hope.

    They're a little late to the party, though. Radley Balko has been writing on this for at least five years. If interested, just google his white paper, "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police". You'll find it at Reason online, both free and paid if you want to order. The free pdf is a little ways down the page.

    I did like the coordinate information requests. Affiliates in 23 states all on the same date? Cool. Poor Radley could never do that by himself.

    Maybe the ACLU can bring enough public attention to this to make a change. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye out for the ACLU to abuse the information or use it in some nefarious way. While some local chapters are decidedly pro-liberty, I don't trust the overall organization.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    What exactly does the ACLU want though ?
    The ACLU wants today, what it's founder Roger Baldwin, an avowed leftist, anarchist, and Communist, wanted in 1917 when he established the forerunner "National Civil Liberties Bureau" (NCLB).
    Relecting on his personal history...
    Baldwin candidly revealed his original motives and objectives: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it."
    This goes a long way toward explaining the activites of the ACLU over the last 85 years. Baldwin was also in cahoots with the U.N. (For more details, Google "Roger Baldwin") Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  4. #4
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    The ACLU does for a few of the Amendments what the NRA and SAF do for the 2A. You may not like that they're liberal commies, but take into consideration that if the conservatives had their way, the 4th-8th Amendments would be cut out completely. And the 1st, can't forget that one.
    We need the ACLU to exist as much as we need the SAF and NRA.

  5. #5
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Maybe the "militarization" of the CIVILIAN police is a good thing...after all, by allowing the use of military weapons by the police, they have in effect, put those same weapons into "common use" per US v Miller.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    The ACLU does for a few of the Amendments what the NRA and SAF do for the 2A. You may not like that they're liberal commies, but take into consideration that if the conservatives had their way, the 4th-8th Amendments would be cut out completely. And the 1st, can't forget that one.
    We need the ACLU to exist as much as we need the SAF and NRA.
    The bolded part is an overbroad statement that is so broad as to be untrue. Generalizations are almost always false.

    Many conservatives, like myself, are classical liberals. We believe in the rights protected by the Constitution. We just realize that improper applications of them actually make folks want to do away with them, which is just as big a danger as society ignoring them. For example, a clerk leaves off the "S." from "S. Third St." on a warrant. The police know the address for which they asked for the warrant. They go to the correct address, search, and find the stolen material. A just conviction results. The ACLU argues that the warrant was for a different address than was searched in order to get a good conviction tossed, claiming that the typo violated the criminal's rights.

    That is the kind of stupid liberalism that the ACLU brings. I prefer classical liberalism, not modern liberalism. It is better to protect our rights by applying them as intended, not using them to push some agenda that has nothing really to do with supporting rights.

  7. #7
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The bolded part is an overbroad statement that is so broad as to be untrue. Generalizations are almost always false.

    Many conservatives, like myself, are classical liberals. We believe in the rights protected by the Constitution. We just realize that improper applications of them actually make folks want to do away with them, which is just as big a danger as society ignoring them. For example, a clerk leaves off the "S." from "S. Third St." on a warrant. The police know the address for which they asked for the warrant. They go to the correct address, search, and find the stolen material. A just conviction results. The ACLU argues that the warrant was for a different address than was searched in order to get a good conviction tossed, claiming that the typo violated the criminal's rights.

    That is the kind of stupid liberalism that the ACLU brings. I prefer classical liberalism, not modern liberalism. It is better to protect our rights by applying them as intended, not using them to push some agenda that has nothing really to do with supporting rights.
    +1

    Methinks he is confusing "conservatives" with "crony capitalists" that infest the Republican party.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    Maybe the "militarization" of the CIVILIAN police is a good thing...after all, by allowing the use of military weapons by the police, they have in effect, put those same weapons into "common use" per US v Miller.
    Did not miller already say that military equipment is covered? So its a 2nd reason?

    US v. Miller, 307 US 174, United States Supreme Court, 1939
    In the Supreme Court case the United States government (US DOJ) brief before the court stated:
    …While some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property as well as the right of the people to bear them collectively (People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455), the cases are unanimous in holding that the term "arms" as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes…
    And the court issued out a final opinion that stated:
    …In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158….

  9. #9
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Did not miller already say that military equipment is covered? So its a 2nd reason?

    US v. Miller, 307 US 174, United States Supreme Court, 1939
    In the Supreme Court case the United States government (US DOJ) brief before the court stated:
    …While some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property as well as the right of the people to bear them collectively (People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455), the cases are unanimous in holding that the term "arms" as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes…
    And the court issued out a final opinion that stated:
    …In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158….
    (ding) (ding) (ding) You are correct! :-) Sounds like 2 good and solid reasons to drop the silliness of "military" v "civilian" weapons. If you can afford to buy, maintain and feed it, then you should be allowed to own and carry it.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    (ding) (ding) (ding) You are correct! :-) Sounds like 2 good and solid reasons to drop the silliness of "military" v "civilian" weapons. If you can afford to buy, maintain and feed it, then you should be allowed to own and carry it.

    remember CAROLINA G, police are civilians, that work for the government. if they keep "militarizing" , then they will start acting like the military. which means marshal law. your rights will not be considered at all. if you have every seen what the military does in Iraq and other places. that is what will be happening on American soil
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •