Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Duckster & Other ACLU Supporters

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    http://www.saf.org/

    They call it like they see it, and often it's against my personal views, but it's the lawful truth, as they see it. Enjoy (preferably with an open mind)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    The Bill of Rights according to BlaineG:

    2. Guns
    The end
    The Bill of Rights according to the document itself

    Amendment I
    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.

    Amendment II
    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.

    Amendment III
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Amendment VII
    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    I'm all for the SAF, assuming they just work to support the 2A of course, and don't support things like warrantless wiretaps, or other infringements on our freedom. But you claim to support all of our freedoms, claim that we shouldn't support any organization that doesn't support all of our freedoms, and then direct us to SAF as a good example of an alternative to the ACLU?

    Of course, that was obvious when you called the ACLU communist liberals because they protect the accused in situations where you wouldn't extend those constitutional rights to them. You only care about freedoms that you perceive as valid, not all of the freedoms that are enumerated in the bill of rights. Exactly like gun grabbers who care about their pet freedoms and want to end your pet freedoms.

    Sadly I'm probably wasting my breath, since you still haven't admitted that you grasp the difference between liberal and libertarian.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    thewise1 wrote:
    The Bill of Rights according to BlaineG:

    2. Guns
    The end
    The Bill of Rights according to the document itself

    Amendment I
    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.

    Amendment II
    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.

    Amendment III
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Amendment VII
    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    I'm all for the SAF, assuming they just work to support the 2A of course, and don't support things like warrantless wiretaps, or other infringements on our freedom. But you claim to support all of our freedoms, claim that we shouldn't support any organization that doesn't support all of our freedoms, and then direct us to SAF as a good example of an alternative to the ACLU?

    Of course, that was obvious when you called the ACLU communist liberals because they protect the accused in situations where you wouldn't extend those constitutional rights to them. You only care about freedoms that you perceive as valid, not all of the freedoms that are enumerated in the bill of rights. Exactly like gun grabbers who care about their pet freedoms and want to end your pet freedoms.

    Sadly I'm probably wasting my breath, since you still haven't admitted that you grasp the difference between liberal and libertarian.
    All untrue. Period. And assigning one's self a Label does not make it a fact, nor will it be a catalyst for your imagined transformation to resemble aforementioned Label:P

    When a criminal gets off the hook because a LEO or lawyer did not dot an I or cross a T on a paper, or miss a deadline of some sort, yes I do not support these "rights"..... Sadly, you don't realize I don't value your opinion of me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    BlaineG wrote:
    thewise1 wrote:
    The Bill of Rights according to BlaineG:

    2. Guns
    The end
    The Bill of Rights according to the document itself

    Amendment I
    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.

    Amendment II
    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.

    Amendment III
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Amendment VII
    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    I'm all for the SAF, assuming they just work to support the 2A of course, and don't support things like warrantless wiretaps, or other infringements on our freedom. But you claim to support all of our freedoms, claim that we shouldn't support any organization that doesn't support all of our freedoms, and then direct us to SAF as a good example of an alternative to the ACLU?

    Of course, that was obvious when you called the ACLU communist liberals because they protect the accused in situations where you wouldn't extend those constitutional rights to them. You only care about freedoms that you perceive as valid, not all of the freedoms that are enumerated in the bill of rights. Exactly like gun grabbers who care about their pet freedoms and want to end your pet freedoms.

    Sadly I'm probably wasting my breath, since you still haven't admitted that you grasp the difference between liberal and libertarian.
    All untrue. Period. And assigning one's self a Label does not make it a fact, nor will it be a catalyst for your imagined transformation to resemble aforementioned Label:P

    When a criminal gets off the hook because a LEO or lawyer did not dot an I or cross a T on a paper, or miss a deadline of some sort, yes I do not support these "rights".....* Sadly, you don't realize I don't value your opinion of me.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    BlaineG wrote:
    All untrue. Period. And assigning one's self a Label does not make it a fact, nor will it be a catalyst for your imagined transformation to resemble aforementioned Label
    Assigning a label to another person does not make it a fact. The fact that you consider "liberal" the only political philosophy other than your own shows how little you understand.

    This is the best part:

    BlaineG wrote:
    When a criminal gets off the hook because a LEO or lawyer did not dot an I or cross a T on a paper, or miss a deadline of some sort, yes I do not support these "rights"..... Sadly, you don't realize I don't value your opinion of me.
    So, basically, you're on record saying you don't give a damn about the bill of rights. As long as you have your guns, the rest of them can go out the window. Well, then, your position on the ACLU makes perfect sense.

    You really don't understand the concept of liberty, do you? "It is better that 100 guilty man go free than for 1 innocent man to suffer." This is the justification for the Bill of Rights and the recognition of other basic human rights. The second amendment exists, among other reasons, so that people have the ability to take personal responsibility for their own safety, so that no one need be afraid of the "100 guilty men" who went free.

    All of a sudden it seems you're the one who wants to treat the Bill of Rights like a buffet.

    Your hypocrisy is truly disgusting.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    Here's a great one for these guys, lol

    A federal judge in Vermont has ruled that prosecutors can't force a criminal defendant accused of having illegal images on his hard drive to divulge his PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) passphrase.
    U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier ruled that a man charged with transporting child pornography on his laptop across the Canadian border has a Fifth Amendment right not to turn over the passphrase to prosecutors. The Fifth Amendment protects the right to avoid self-incrimination.
    Niedermeier tossed out a grand jury's subpoena that directed Sebastien Boucher to provide "any passwords" used with his Alienware laptop. "Compelling Boucher to enter the password forces him to produce evidence that could be used to incriminate him," the judge wrote in an order dated November 29 that went unnoticed until this week. "Producing the password, as if it were a key to a locked container, forces Boucher to produce the contents of his laptop."
    Especially if this ruling is appealed, U.S. v. Boucher could become a landmark case. The question of whether a criminal defendant can be legally compelled to cough up his encryption passphrase remains an unsettled one, with law review articles for the last decade arguing the merits of either approach. (A U.S. Justice Department attorney wrote an article in 1996, for instance, titled "Compelled Production of Plaintext and Keys.")
    This debate has been one of analogy and metaphor. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.
    Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department prosecutor who's now a law professor at George Washington University, shares this view. Kerr acknowledges that it's a tough call, but says, "I tend to think Judge Niedermeier was wrong given the specific facts of this case."
    The alternate view elevates individual rights over prosecutorial convenience. It looks to other Supreme Court cases saying Americans can't be forced to give "compelled testimonial communications" and argues the Fifth Amendment must apply to encryption passphrases as well. Courts already have ruled that that such protection extends to the contents of a defendant's minds, so why shouldn't a passphrase be shielded as well?
    In this case, Judge Niedermeier took the second approach. He said that encryption keys can be "testimonial," and even the prosecution's alternative of asking the defendant to type in the passphrase when nobody was looking would be insufficient.
    Laptop files: Unencrypted, then encrypted
    A second reason this case is unusual is that Boucher was initially arrested when customs agents stopped him and searched his laptop when he and his father crossed the border from Canada on December 17, 2006. An officer opened the laptop, accessed the files without a password or passphrase, and allegedly discovered "thousands of images of adult pornography and animation depicting adult and child pornography."
    Boucher was read his Miranda rights, waived them, and allegedly told the customs agents that he may have downloaded child pornography. But then--and this is key--the laptop was shut down after Boucher was arrested. It wasn't until December 26 that a Vermont Department of Corrections officer tried to access the laptop--prosecutors obtained a subpoena on December 19--and found that the Z: drive was encrypted with PGP, or Pretty Good Privacy. (PGP sells software, including whole disk encryption and drive-specific encryption. It's a little unclear what exactly happened, but one likely scenario is that Boucher configured PGP to forget his passphrase, effectively re-encrypting the Z: drive, after a few hours or days had elapsed.)
    According to Niedermeier's written opinion, prosecutors sent Boucher a grand jury subpoena asking for the passwords because:
    Secret Service Agent Matthew Fasvlo, who has experience and training in computer forensics, testified that it is nearly impossible to access these encrypted files without knowing the password. There are no "back doors" or secret entrances to access the files. The only way to get access without the password is to use an automated system which repeatedly guesses passwords. According to the government, the process to unlock drive Z could take years, based on efforts to unlock similarly encrypted files in another case. Despite its best efforts, to date the government has been unable to learn the password to access drive Z.
    The opinion added:
    If the subpoena is requesting production of the files in drive Z, the foregone conclusion doctrine does not apply. While the government has seen some of the files on drive Z, it has not viewed all or even most of them. While the government may know of the existence and location of the files it has previously viewed, it does not know of the existence of other files on drive Z that may contain incriminating material. By compelling entry of the password the government would be compelling production of all the files on drive Z, both known and unknown.
    Boucher is a Canadian citizen who is a lawful permanent resident in the United States and lives with his father in Derry, N.H. Two attorneys listed as representing him could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday.
    So what happens next? It's possible that prosecutors will be able to establish that Boucher's laptop has child pornography on it without being able to access it: after all, there were at least two federal agents who looked at the laptop when the Z: drive was still unencrypted.
    But if this ruling in the case is eventually appealed, it could have a far-reaching impact in a pro-privacy or pro-law-enforcement direction.
    Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami, has written that the government "would have a very hard time" trying to obtain a memorized passphrase. A similar argument, published in the University of Chicago Legal Forum in 1996, says:
    The courts likely will find that compelling someone to reveal the steps necessary to decrypt a PGP-encrypted document violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Because most users protect their private keys by memorizing passwords to them and not writing them down, access to encrypted documents would almost definitely require an individual to disclose the contents of his mind. This bars the state from compelling its production. This would force law enforcement officials to grant some form of immunity to the owners of these documents to gain access to them.
    But prosecutors think they can split the idea of immunity into two halves: divulging the passphrase, and then using the passphrase to decrypt the files. A 1996 article by Philip Reitinger of the Department of Justice's computer crime section proposes a clever device for forcing a defendant to divulge a PGP passphrase and then convicting him anyway (remember, the passphrase lets the key be used to decrypt the document):
    Finally, even if the foregoing considerations require the government to grant act-of-production immunity to compel production of a key, the scope of the immunity should be quite narrow. The contents of the key are not privileged, and it is the contents that will be used to decrypt a document. Therefore, the government can use the contents of the decrypted document without impediment. Unless the government cannot authenticate the document to be decrypted without using the act of production of the key, granting act-of-production immunity should have little effect.
    Translation: Giving a defendant limited immunity in terms of forcing them to turn over the passphrase can lead to a conviction. That's because the fellow technically isn't being convicted based on his passphrase; he's being convicted for what it unlocks. Isn't the law grand?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    So you will all like this one.

    Email I sent to them:


    Dear ACLU,

    I am think serious of joining your group, but I have a question regarding individual rights as stated that this is what the ACLU is about protecting, which I am all for.

    The recent Columbia vs. Heller ruling that the The 2nd Amendment, Right to Bear arms, is an individual right. Does this mean that The ACLU is now going to be active in the pro-gun lobby? In the past I know the ACLU is not active in preserving this constitutional right and I am just looking for clarification on this subject.

    Thank you in advance for your answer on this as it weighs heavily as to how I spend my personal resources.

    Thier Response:

    Thanks for your interest in the ACLU and its work.

    Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. The ACLU continues to endorse that interpretation of the Second Amendment, despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 vote striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

    The ACLU works neither for nor against gun control measures; this is not part of our agenda. We do work with pro-gun groups when an essential civil liberty is involved. For example, the Second Amendment Foundation is one of the ACLU of Washington's plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the North Central Regional Library's computer filtering policy, which has blocked the site "Women and Guns."

    Most of our members disagree with one or more ACLU positions on civil liberties issues. And many of our members belong to other organizations, such as the NRA, which focus efforts on particular issues about which they care deeply. They continue to support the ACLU because they recognize the vital importance of our overall work in defense of freedom.

    Kind regards,

    ACLU of Washington

    [/code]

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Triple Tap wrote: [quote]So you will all like this one.

    Email I sent to them:


    Dear ACLU,

    I am think serious of joining your group, but I have a question regarding individual rights as stated that this is what the ACLU is about protecting, which I am all for.

    The recent Columbia vs. Heller ruling that the The 2nd Amendment, Right to Bear arms, is an individual right. Does this mean that The ACLU is now going to be active in the pro-gun lobby? In the past I know the ACLU is not active in preserving this constitutional right and I am just looking for clarification on this subject.

    Thank you in advance for your answer on this as it weighs heavily as to how I spend my personal resources.

    Thier Response:

    Thanks for your interest in the ACLU and its work.

    Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. The ACLU continues to endorse that interpretation of the Second Amendment, despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 vote striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

    The ACLU works neither for nor against gun control measures; this is not part of our agenda. We do work with pro-gun groups when an essential civil liberty is involved. For example, the Second Amendment Foundation is one of the ACLU of Washington's plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the North Central Regional Library's computer filtering policy, which has blocked the site "Women and Guns."

    Most of our members disagree with one or more ACLU positions on civil liberties issues. And many of our members belong to other organizations, such as the NRA, which focus efforts on particular issues about which they care deeply. They continue to support the ACLU because they recognize the vital importance of our overall work in defense of freedom.

    Kind regards,

    ACLU of Washington

    [code]I find it very interesting that, as usual, the phrases "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state" are emphasized, while "the people" are being ignored.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Bookman wrote:

    I find it very interesting that, as usual, the phrases "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state" are emphasized, while "the people" are being ignored.
    Triple Tap wrote:
    So you will all like this one.

    Email I sent to them:


    Dear ACLU,

    I am think serious of joining your group, but I have a question regarding individual rights as stated that this is what the ACLU is about protecting, which I am all for.

    The recent Columbia vs. Heller ruling that the The 2nd Amendment, Right to Bear arms, is an individual right. Does this mean that The ACLU is now going to be active in the pro-gun lobby? In the past I know the ACLU is not active in preserving this constitutional right and I am just looking for clarification on this subject.

    Thank you in advance for your answer on this as it weighs heavily as to how I spend my personal resources.

    Thier Response:

    Thanks for your interest in the ACLU and its work.

    Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. The ACLU continues to endorse that interpretation of the Second Amendment, despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 vote striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

    The ACLU works neither for nor against gun control measures; this is not part of our agenda. We do work with pro-gun groups when an essential civil liberty is involved. For example, the Second Amendment Foundation is one of the ACLU of Washington's plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the North Central Regional Library's computer filtering policy, which has blocked the site "Women and Guns."

    Most of our members disagree with one or more ACLU positions on civil liberties issues. And many of our members belong to other organizations, such as the NRA, which focus efforts on particular issues about which they care deeply. They continue to support the ACLU because they recognize the vital importance of our overall work in defense of freedom.

    Kind regards,

    ACLU of Washington
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    BlaineG wrote:
    All untrue. Period. And assigning one's self a Label does not make it a fact, nor will it be a catalyst for your imagined transformation to resemble aforementioned Label
    Assigning a label to another person does not make it a fact. The fact that you consider "liberal" the only political philosophy other than your own shows how little you understand.

    This is the best part:

    BlaineG wrote:
    When a criminal gets off the hook because a LEO or lawyer did not dot an I or cross a T on a paper, or miss a deadline of some sort, yes I do not support these "rights"..... Sadly, you don't realize I don't value your opinion of me.
    So, basically, you're on record saying you don't give a damn about the bill of rights. As long as you have your guns, the rest of them can go out the window. Well, then, your position on the ACLU makes perfect sense.

    You really don't understand the concept of liberty, do you? "It is better that 100 guilty man go free than for 1 innocent man to suffer." This is the justification for the Bill of Rights and the recognition of other basic human rights. The second amendment exists, among other reasons, so that people have the ability to take personal responsibility for their own safety, so that no one need be afraid of the "100 guilty men" who went free.

    All of a sudden it seems you're the one who wants to treat the Bill of Rights like a buffet.

    Your hypocrisy is truly disgusting.
    Oh, bite me..........you know what I'm saying. The LEO could have watched the guy blow someone away, but if the paperwork is wrong, the guy gets off.....Stop playing word games and engage.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    "It is better that 100 guilty man go free than for 1 innocent man to suffer.
    +1

    That's exactly the quote that came to mind for me, too. I swear, if people would just listen to Thomas freakin' Jefferson we'd be in good shape.

    Understand that if the rules can be bent to catch bad guys, they can be bent to catch good guys, too. That's EXACTLY what we're struggling against with this OC movement.

    Liberty first, then justice. That's the only way you'll have true justice anyway.

    How dare we accuse the ACLU of only supporting the liberties they like, while we do the same thing! Let's deal with the plank in our own eye before the speck in theirs.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    According to the SAF website, their mission is as follows:

    The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.

    Can someone explain to me how this is any different from the ACLU supporting only 8 of the amendments? I had never heard of this group, but I think that what they are doing is admirable--just as what the ACLU is doing is admirable. Like Bear, I would prefer a group that supports all of the amendments and the interconnectedness of them, I think that we have to take what we can get until we get what we want--or create it ourselves.

    PS. Please excuse the errors in my previous posts; I was posting from my cell phone. LOL

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    scarlett1125 wrote:
    According to the SAF website, their mission is as follows:

    The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.

    Can someone explain to me how this is any different from the ACLU supporting only 8 of the amendments? I had never heard of this group, but I think that what they are doing is admirable--just as what the ACLU is doing is admirable. Like Bear, I would prefer a group that supports all of the amendments and the interconnectedness of them, I think that we have to take what we can get until we get what we want--or create it ourselves.

    PS. Please excuse the errors in my previous posts; I was posting from my cell phone. LOL
    There's nothing wrong with having an emphasis on something. We're all here, focusing on the 2nd amendment, after all.

    The difference is, despite what they say, the ACLU is anti-gun, not merely pro- the rest.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    scarlett1125 wrote:
    According to the SAF website, their mission is as follows:

    The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.

    Can someone explain to me how this is any different from the ACLU supporting only 8 of the amendments? I had never heard of this group, but I think that what they are doing is admirable--just as what the ACLU is doing is admirable. Like Bear, I would prefer a group that supports all of the amendments and the interconnectedness of them, I think that we have to take what we can get until we get what we want--or create it ourselves.

    PS. Please excuse the errors in my previous posts; I was posting from my cell phone. LOL
    There's nothing wrong with having an emphasis on something. We're all here, focusing on the 2nd amendment, after all.

    The difference is, despite what they say, the ACLU is anti-gun, not merely pro- the rest.
    And yet they don't actively do anything in either direction, and still help gun owners when it's a different essential liberty involved.

    Much like basically all of us here on OCDO support the 2nd amendment, but have very differing views of the other essential liberties, as suggested in this thread and others.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    BlaineG wrote:
    Oh, bite me..........you know what I'm saying. The LEO could have watched the guy blow someone away, but if the paperwork is wrong, the guy gets off.....Stop playing word games and engage.
    Word games? I think not.

    What was it that was said recently? Oh yeah.
    BlaineG wrote:
    You cut me up and down and still won't own your exact words......Words have meaning, Bud, so you should say exactly what they mean.....

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    The difference is, despite what they say, the ACLU is anti-gun, not merely pro- the rest.
    The difference is, despite what they say, the ACLU doesn't work against the 2nd amendment anymore than they work for it.

    Although, I will agree their response to the question above is rather disgusting. Obviously they don't understand the function of a prefatory clause, are ignoring "the people," and forgetting the fact that their arguments makes no sense when considering the function of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with regards to one another.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    BlaineG wrote:
    Oh, bite me..........you know what I'm saying. The LEO could have watched the guy blow someone away, but if the paperwork is wrong, the guy gets off.....Stop playing word games and engage.
    Word games? I think not.

    What was it that was said recently? Oh yeah.
    BlaineG wrote:
    You cut me up and down and still won't own your exact words......Words have meaning, Bud, so you should say exactly what they mean.....
    No, No, and No I said exactly what I meant: I don't like to see guilty people let off the hook for a technicality How can we exchange ideas if you insist on purposely misunderstanding?I'm so far into my dotage, I might not have time to see the end of this if you drag it out much longer

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    I guess maybe what I'm trying to say is the ACLU markets itself as a defender of civil rights, yet they do not fight for one they don't like. Seems patently hypocritical, even if it's true they don't specifically work against RKBA. That's not to say they don't do good things.

    OTOH, a gun rights .org markets itself as a defender of gun rights. General liberties are perhaps implied, but not specified or focused. As long as they don't specifically work against the other rights, they're still within their charter and without hypocrisy.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    That's a fair point; I can agree with it.

Posting Permissions

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