• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

ACLU press release

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
The ACLU really shouldnt be complaining. They are all liberals and democrats who support big government and tons and tons of new laws every year.

I totally agree with that America has become a police state but the focus of the ACLU here seems to be alot on the guns and hardward that police have.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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...
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
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.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,741
Location
Concord, NC
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.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
I used to oppose the ACLU more than I do now.

They do in fact help many people with civil rights issues and thats important. However, they are very selective in the parts of the constitution to uphold and they are very selective in which people they should help.

I am a libertarian and I dont think the ACLU is on the side of libertarians.

With that being said, my lawyer is considering joining with the ACLU in my lawsuit against a local police department.

The ACLU is very successful in sueing police departments.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,741
Location
Concord, NC
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
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….
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,741
Location
Concord, NC
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.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
mayberry, nc
(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
 
Top