I suggest the reader checks out and use the following and google "Tavistock Institute and the erosion of the American Constitution" the third blog down, and others gives a in depth account of the threat to America, it is serious with regard to the control of the mind and the insidious penetration of corruption of Democracy in America, and all that follows, I would say you are all dead meat including myself, the over confidence of Americans is enough to make one weep, I send you a SOS.
"A pro-democracy group" is a terrorist group in the eyes of the United States Fascist Oligarchy. Google (Southern Poverty Law Center The Enablers), & that's just the beginning!
The difference between Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU is that Greenwald has been very consistent on civil liberties. His articles are routinely praised by Lew Rockwell and are featured on his site.
Where is the ACLU on second amendment cases???? Intentionally absent. Liberals whining about checks on power, as long as their guy is not at the helm. If liberals (in the modern sense) had a brain they'd be libertarians.
@AKlover I am not sure that liberals who completely agreed with your views on gun rights would make them anything remotely close to a libertarians. In general, liberals agree with libertarians on personal freedoms but disagree with libertarians on economic policy. And, in general, conservatives disagree with libertarians on personal freedoms but agree with libertarians on economic policy. Each with one exception Guns for liberals and military spending for conservative.
@Loathomar Not necessarily true. I am a 2nd amendment supporting liberal. I always find myself torn between the Libertarians and the Democrats. It is tough for someone who loves civil liberties in this country.
@dlane0308 My point was that if you take a liberal and change there views on the 2nd amendment to be a big supporter of the conservative view of the 2nd amendment, that does not make that person a Libertarians. I too feel toward between the Libertarians and the Democrats, but that is because a disagree with a lot of the Democrat's view, not just gun control. Thought there is a question of not just do you support the 2nd amendment, but how do you read the 2nd amendment? count...
count.. Basically, do you completely ignore the 1st section of the 2nd amendment? Personally, I believe the states have the regulate guns, even ban them outside a well regulated Militia under the constitution, but at the same time I know banning guns does not do any real good, so why they help would I support a removal of a freedom, if it does not do any good. Banning guns does not decrease crime or deaths so why do it? I never support and removal of any freedom, if it does not do some real good
And I know that sounds funny, but I am mean things like speed limits or things of that nature, not free speech. I mean, if limiting people speed on the hwy to 70mph saves 1 million lives per year vs no speed limit, I am all for it, but if it save little to no lives, well then it is just BS and should be removed. Either effective regulation or no regulation at all. And as so much of the government regulation is ineffective, I have a tendency to lean towards Libertarianism.
@Loathomar How do I interpret the 2nd amendment? I hold that it applies to individuals, not states. Seeing that a militia is nothing but a voluntary citizens' army, I don't see how that clause changes the meaning significantly. Aside from any constitutional reason I am a supporter of gun rights and the right to self defense in general.
@saper321 As if the conservatives are any different? Shit, how many revoted for Bush in the 2004 election even after 4 years of massive spending increases, huge loses of liberty and constant F'outs? Enough to win an election. The two party system has everyone by the balls, liberal hate Obama but will vote for him cause he is not a Republican and Conservatives is vote for what ever candidate is elected in the primates, no mater how useless, cause he is not Obama. I mean WTF?
When an American citizen like Al Waliki puts on the "uniform" of the enemy, he gets what any other enemy "soldier" gets. Al Quieda declared war on us FIRST and drew first blood FIRST. They have determined the parameters of this war, not the US or ACLU. The ACLU needs to understand if these people win, they will be the ones kneeling in the sand about to have their heads lopped off if the Muslim fundamentalists win. Their heads and the heads of many "infidels" will role in the dirt.
@generalripper1964 The killing was not in an active combat zone, otherwise your argument would hold water. It was an assassination of an American citizen without a trial, whether you think so or not.
@grrrstick It is an active combat zone. From that location he inspired and coordinated attacks against the US. Remember Major Nidal Hassan and Ft. Hood Texas? He stacked up bodies piled high as he yelled "GOD IS GREATEST" in Arabic.Like it or not, this war has no enemy wearing a specific uniform or occupying a specific piece of real estate. He is at your front and in your rear on buses, subway stations, or driving the bus at DIA. That is the REAL world not the IDEAL world.
You have 10 sec. to convince me you are not a terrorist or I'm reporting you to FBI. If they find something, anything you will qualify for indefinite detention in one of their state of the art facilities.
@generalripper1964 What are you talking about win? They are winning because we are destroying our own civil liberties ourselves because we are scared. I don't think many would disagree that guy was bad, but you apparently cannot see the broader consequences of letting the executive unilaterally decide without any sort of check when an American citizen should be killed. That is totally and utterly incongruent with our Constitution.
I somewhat disagree with her. When she defines "war" she goes on and on about the parameters. None of those matter, because the Constitution defines war, both philosophically and legally, for the United States. Congress must declare war by vote. They have never done that. We popularly call it a war, but it does not legally qualify. If you include the War Powers Act, it still doesn't pass muster. The President therefore CANNOT intentionally target to kill a citizen. Dirt bag or otherwise.
@Buffalo122333 The ACLU protects religious freedom, the fill complaints on behalf of Christian students all the time, when they are told they can where Christian cloths or start a student run prayer group. If you go to aclufightsforchristians (.) com, you can see all the cases they have fought for Christian. The only time the ACLU stops "religious freedom" is when it is the government who is being religious. Who wants a state run religion? Cause the State is so good at running everything else?
Isn't this proof that the ACLU is racist? All people who disagree with Obama are racists, aren't they? Isn't it true that a number of jusidictions have threatened to arrest any person who spread "rumors" about Obama?
“Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” (1783) - William Pitt (the younger)
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." Roger Baldwin, founder of ACLU.
The ACLU is half on our side. If only they supported individual property "liberties" and gun "liberties" then that would be great. But then they would be the Institute for Justice! :)
12:26 Poor taste there Nick. Pointless section, left a bad taste in my mouth for the rest of the video. Don't pull that crap on people who agree to be interviewed by you. It's sad you had to take an informative piece, and ruin it with politicizing it. The last five minutes were a complete waste. Since when did ReasonTV hop on the liberal bashing bandwagon? That's partly why I'm still subbed to you is because you always do such a god job avoiding that, also why I no longer subscribe to PJTV.
In the first place, Al Qaeda is not a “terrorist” group. It is a CIA network. The US government labels people “terrorist” who disagree with US foreign policy OR defend their homes against US aggression.
The citizens of the US are ALSO considered terrorist by the DHS, Congress, the White House, CIA, Pentagon, and all the military intelligence agenices. They engage in Orwelliam semantics to deceive.
While I like you talking about this situation now. We should have been talking about it long ago when the government was killing people up on Ruby Ridge. Which is in the United States.
Nick why didn't you ask her why the ACLU does not support or defend the Second Amendment and not endorse the individual rights view? Why do they support all other civil liberties except that one?
@safewaysecurity Does it really matter? Unless of course you can point to an ACLU case where they're trying to get rid of the second amendment. No, can't find that? Didn't think so. We have the NRA for that. So you guys need to relax.
You know. Just looking over the comment section here today, I can only think one thing. Conservative talk radio must have found a new "liberal" organization to bust on. I've never seen so many people be so crazy about the ACLU.
@safewaysecurity It doesn't matter. As long as they support the rest of them, there's really no point in making a fuss about what they don't support (in your opinion). There are plenty of other gun rights groups that would jump on any case trying to mess with the second amendment, so why are you all getting all crazy that the ACLU doesn't make it their sole purpose, when plenty of others do make it their sole purpose? It really shouldn't matter to you, since they're not attacking it.
@bweazel I never said they should make it their sole purpose. I'm just saying they should protected and defend it just like they do for any other right enshrined in our founding document the Constitution. They explicitly endorse the "collective right" under the Second Amendment and believe the court in Heller(2008) and McDonald(2010) were wrong in their analysis that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense.
@safewaysecurity I think a bit part of why the ACLU does not do much with the 2nd Amendment is that it is already covered by the NRA. The ACLU has a budget of $85 million which is mean to cover the entire US constitution, the NRA has a budget of $205 million which is mean to cover only the 2nd Amendment. Is the ACLU has an increase in funding of 25 times, it would be reasonable to expect them to be the major defenders of the 2nd Amendment, but as it is, they can let the NRA take it.
@Loathomar It's not. They state on their site explicitly that they do not endorse the individual rights view of the Second Amendment and think the court was wrong in their interpretation. Only some state and local chapters of the ACLU endorse the individual rights view.
@safewaysecurity Yes, the ACLU does take the literal view of gun rights, that the state of the right for a free state and the federal government can not ban the states from having well regulated Militia. Some federal law have over stepped those rules and the NRA was the ones who fought those fights. Sadly, unlike free speech or free press, the US constitution added any "clause" to make them debatable. You can interpret the Constitution at some points, but most need none.
@Loathomar "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I don't see it saying anything about the right of militias or states. It's an individual ight to keep and bear arms. It's clear as day.
@safewaysecurity You're taking part of the text out, though. It points out that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. So there is militia and state right there. How you interpret those words, though...
@PaganMars It's a prefatory clause. All it says is that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It doesn't dictate anything. It's not a command or really any sort of limitation. However the second part saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the operative clause that gives the command and restricts the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. Pretty simple constitutional analysis.
@safewaysecurity It is true that if someone breaks into your home, you have the right to kill a person. But to take out the first part and say "you have the right to kill a person" and this is all the time, that is some bull. I can say for $10,000, you can have my car. But if you read it like you read the 2nd, you can have my car without payment. "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."
@Loathomar Yes but read what it says. All the first part says is that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It basically states a purpose before the operative clause saying that therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By stating the peoples right they ensure that the militia could never be disarmed because the people are the militia essentially. If you study history you would know this. Read some Stephen Halbrook books for something.
@safewaysecurity The major concern, and the main reason for the 2nd Amendment was not personal rights to bare arms, it was to stop the new formed Federal Government from disarming the state Militia's. It came as a compromise between the federalists and Anti-federalists. Some groups wanted a much broader 2nd Amendment, like the which included the right to bared arms from self defense but these where not chosen as the 2nd Amendment.
I would agree that if any state wanted to declare all their people part the militia, then the federal government has not right to restrict any guns from those people, even full auto, armor piercing guns, but that is up to the states. But to say the states have no right to regulate there "well regulated Militia" seems laughable. The fact that it is called a "well regulated Militia" means the there are regulations. "The people" without any regulations can't be a "well regulated Militia".
@Loathomar The entire idea of the bill of rights is to limit government's power to do anything regarding the freedom of the average man. Where do you get the idea that they chose that one amendment to limit what people could do and not the government's ability to mess with what people are doing?
@daPlumber702 Right, there is no question that the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to bare arms if part of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. But going from that to saying the 2nd Amendment clearly gives everyone the right to bare arms for any reason, is a huge leap to me. Like at the bill of rights it limits government's power, the question is by how much. And I say, it does not clearly give freedom to arms without regulations or restrictions.
@Loathomar ",the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " you're right, they put that in there by mistake... might as well ignore it.
Now, just because, in my view, it is not given as a right that any should be able to have a gun without regulations or restrictions does not mean the government must or even should do much regulations or restrictions on gun, and almost any regulations or restrictions should come from the states and not the Fed.
@Loathomar This I can agree with, although the idea of restrictions or regulations on owning anything really is nothing but another way for the government to make us all slaves. every last one of us.
@Loathomar Just so that you know, the right to keep and bare arms exists because the founding fathers watched the British seize all weapons when they realized the people might revolt.
@daPlumber702 Good point. You should explain this to our POTUS as he has stated quite indignantly that "the US Constitution is a document of negative liberties." And thank the intellectual founders for that! Our rights go way beyond what the constitution states. US constitution states what government CAN"T do to it's citizens with respect to adopting law.
@Loathomar It's actually not true that if someone breaks into your home you have the right to kill them.. You have the right to defend yourself and your property, and if in doing so the thief should die you should not be put in jail or have charges pressed against you..
So your example was just as wrong as your idea of the 2nd amendment.
@daPlumber702 I said "if someone breaks into your home, you have the right to kill a person" you said "not true that if someone breaks into your home you have the right to kill them" how is saying them same thing as I said make my statement not true. I was pointing out, if it you ignore the first part "if someone breaks into your home", then you have the right to kill anyone, any time, which is insane. That 1st part is very important and it change the meaning of the whole.
@Loathomar Far from The same thing. There are quite a number of cases in which someone killed a person breaking into their house and was charged, because there is a point at which it changes from the defense of you and your person to the murder of a human being, and you have no right to kill anyone. The way you put it is wrong all around and therefore it doesn't matter what the first part means to the second.. The way you use words is very important.
@Gammaclipper It certainly is relevant when the ACLU claims to protect civil liberties, but then ignores the one human right that guarantees all other rights and liberties.
@FatherTime89 It's not redundant at all. It does not take a lot of money to submit an Amicus Brief. Liberal justices respect the ACLU VERY much and an endorsement of the individual rights view of the Second Amendment would work wonders in transforming the legal landscape. They have a lot of power.
Has anyone noticed that no militias were called upon to fight off the invaders in the Modern Warfare games?
QuartuvLarry 2 months ago
I suggest the reader checks out and use the following and google "Tavistock Institute and the erosion of the American Constitution" the third blog down, and others gives a in depth account of the threat to America, it is serious with regard to the control of the mind and the insidious penetration of corruption of Democracy in America, and all that follows, I would say you are all dead meat including myself, the over confidence of Americans is enough to make one weep, I send you a SOS.
wrefordon 2 months ago
This is one reason I don't totally loathe the ACLU.
steve0281 2 months ago
Your country is SO corrupted and full of shit.... thank god I don't live there!!
briandecree 2 months ago
Get a haircut and dress shirt Nick!
KcKommunistisch 2 months ago in playlist Reason.tv Features
"A pro-democracy group" is a terrorist group in the eyes of the United States Fascist Oligarchy. Google (Southern Poverty Law Center The Enablers), & that's just the beginning!
cresidue 2 months ago
The difference between Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU is that Greenwald has been very consistent on civil liberties. His articles are routinely praised by Lew Rockwell and are featured on his site.
chevydriver1123 2 months ago
Where is the ACLU on second amendment cases???? Intentionally absent. Liberals whining about checks on power, as long as their guy is not at the helm. If liberals (in the modern sense) had a brain they'd be libertarians.
AKlover 2 months ago 5
@AKlover I am not sure that liberals who completely agreed with your views on gun rights would make them anything remotely close to a libertarians. In general, liberals agree with libertarians on personal freedoms but disagree with libertarians on economic policy. And, in general, conservatives disagree with libertarians on personal freedoms but agree with libertarians on economic policy. Each with one exception Guns for liberals and military spending for conservative.
Loathomar 2 months ago
@Loathomar Not necessarily true. I am a 2nd amendment supporting liberal. I always find myself torn between the Libertarians and the Democrats. It is tough for someone who loves civil liberties in this country.
dlane0308 2 months ago
@dlane0308 My point was that if you take a liberal and change there views on the 2nd amendment to be a big supporter of the conservative view of the 2nd amendment, that does not make that person a Libertarians. I too feel toward between the Libertarians and the Democrats, but that is because a disagree with a lot of the Democrat's view, not just gun control. Thought there is a question of not just do you support the 2nd amendment, but how do you read the 2nd amendment? count...
Loathomar 2 months ago
count.. Basically, do you completely ignore the 1st section of the 2nd amendment? Personally, I believe the states have the regulate guns, even ban them outside a well regulated Militia under the constitution, but at the same time I know banning guns does not do any real good, so why they help would I support a removal of a freedom, if it does not do any good. Banning guns does not decrease crime or deaths so why do it? I never support and removal of any freedom, if it does not do some real good
Loathomar 2 months ago
And I know that sounds funny, but I am mean things like speed limits or things of that nature, not free speech. I mean, if limiting people speed on the hwy to 70mph saves 1 million lives per year vs no speed limit, I am all for it, but if it save little to no lives, well then it is just BS and should be removed. Either effective regulation or no regulation at all. And as so much of the government regulation is ineffective, I have a tendency to lean towards Libertarianism.
Loathomar 2 months ago
@Loathomar How do I interpret the 2nd amendment? I hold that it applies to individuals, not states. Seeing that a militia is nothing but a voluntary citizens' army, I don't see how that clause changes the meaning significantly. Aside from any constitutional reason I am a supporter of gun rights and the right to self defense in general.
dlane0308 2 months ago
I would support big government if they actually did something.. they don't so I can't.
NAUresistance 3 months ago
It takes Republican president for liberals to care about civil liberties.
saper321 3 months ago in playlist Reason.tv Interviews 2011
@saper321 As if the conservatives are any different? Shit, how many revoted for Bush in the 2004 election even after 4 years of massive spending increases, huge loses of liberty and constant F'outs? Enough to win an election. The two party system has everyone by the balls, liberal hate Obama but will vote for him cause he is not a Republican and Conservatives is vote for what ever candidate is elected in the primates, no mater how useless, cause he is not Obama. I mean WTF?
Loathomar 3 months ago
When an American citizen like Al Waliki puts on the "uniform" of the enemy, he gets what any other enemy "soldier" gets. Al Quieda declared war on us FIRST and drew first blood FIRST. They have determined the parameters of this war, not the US or ACLU. The ACLU needs to understand if these people win, they will be the ones kneeling in the sand about to have their heads lopped off if the Muslim fundamentalists win. Their heads and the heads of many "infidels" will role in the dirt.
generalripper1964 3 months ago
@generalripper1964 The killing was not in an active combat zone, otherwise your argument would hold water. It was an assassination of an American citizen without a trial, whether you think so or not.
grrrstick 3 months ago
@grrrstick It is an active combat zone. From that location he inspired and coordinated attacks against the US. Remember Major Nidal Hassan and Ft. Hood Texas? He stacked up bodies piled high as he yelled "GOD IS GREATEST" in Arabic.Like it or not, this war has no enemy wearing a specific uniform or occupying a specific piece of real estate. He is at your front and in your rear on buses, subway stations, or driving the bus at DIA. That is the REAL world not the IDEAL world.
generalripper1964 3 months ago
@generalripper1964
You have 10 sec. to convince me you are not a terrorist or I'm reporting you to FBI. If they find something, anything you will qualify for indefinite detention in one of their state of the art facilities.
saper321 3 months ago in playlist Reason.tv Interviews 2011
@generalripper1964 What are you talking about win? They are winning because we are destroying our own civil liberties ourselves because we are scared. I don't think many would disagree that guy was bad, but you apparently cannot see the broader consequences of letting the executive unilaterally decide without any sort of check when an American citizen should be killed. That is totally and utterly incongruent with our Constitution.
marinegrunt0341 3 months ago
9:47- the founders knew that is what would happen
upyr1 3 months ago in playlist Reason.tv Interviews 2011
I somewhat disagree with her. When she defines "war" she goes on and on about the parameters. None of those matter, because the Constitution defines war, both philosophically and legally, for the United States. Congress must declare war by vote. They have never done that. We popularly call it a war, but it does not legally qualify. If you include the War Powers Act, it still doesn't pass muster. The President therefore CANNOT intentionally target to kill a citizen. Dirt bag or otherwise.
chuckarama451 3 months ago
I'll respect the ACLU when it stops attacking religious freedom.
Buffalo122333 3 months ago
@Buffalo122333 The ACLU protects religious freedom, the fill complaints on behalf of Christian students all the time, when they are told they can where Christian cloths or start a student run prayer group. If you go to aclufightsforchristians (.) com, you can see all the cases they have fought for Christian. The only time the ACLU stops "religious freedom" is when it is the government who is being religious. Who wants a state run religion? Cause the State is so good at running everything else?
Loathomar 3 months ago
Isn't this proof that the ACLU is racist? All people who disagree with Obama are racists, aren't they? Isn't it true that a number of jusidictions have threatened to arrest any person who spread "rumors" about Obama?
pkpapers 3 months ago
“Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” (1783) - William Pitt (the younger)
dustyrhoads1 3 months ago
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." Roger Baldwin, founder of ACLU.
oilhammer04 3 months ago 2
The ACLU is half on our side. If only they supported individual property "liberties" and gun "liberties" then that would be great. But then they would be the Institute for Justice! :)
freesk8 3 months ago 4
12:26 Poor taste there Nick. Pointless section, left a bad taste in my mouth for the rest of the video. Don't pull that crap on people who agree to be interviewed by you. It's sad you had to take an informative piece, and ruin it with politicizing it. The last five minutes were a complete waste. Since when did ReasonTV hop on the liberal bashing bandwagon? That's partly why I'm still subbed to you is because you always do such a god job avoiding that, also why I no longer subscribe to PJTV.
bweazel 3 months ago
In the first place, Al Qaeda is not a “terrorist” group. It is a CIA network. The US government labels people “terrorist” who disagree with US foreign policy OR defend their homes against US aggression.
The citizens of the US are ALSO considered terrorist by the DHS, Congress, the White House, CIA, Pentagon, and all the military intelligence agenices. They engage in Orwelliam semantics to deceive.
harrysstuff2 3 months ago
Ashamed of voting for Obama.
arcanekrusader 3 months ago 2
@arcanekrusader It's OK dude, I voted for Bush. Twice.
Now I'm a free market anarchist (recovering religious neoconservative).
032125 3 months ago
@032125 Welcome to the freedom movement! :) We're happy you are here.
Free Minds and Free Markets! :)
freesk8 3 months ago
I agree with karozans--screw the ACLU!
DBoy2029 3 months ago
Thank you for helping Rush Limbaugh with his case. Appreciated.
InfoWarsTV1 3 months ago in playlist Reason.tv Interviews 2011
No comments... WTF people.
guitarmaestro078 3 months ago
Hey Susan ! #@$&^$&*(@#% YOU !
antidoteco 3 months ago
While I like you talking about this situation now. We should have been talking about it long ago when the government was killing people up on Ruby Ridge. Which is in the United States.
lantern256 3 months ago 26
Ouh amerika , welcome to soviet rule
koneye 3 months ago 2
Fork the ACLU.
karozans 3 months ago
Nick why didn't you ask her why the ACLU does not support or defend the Second Amendment and not endorse the individual rights view? Why do they support all other civil liberties except that one?
safewaysecurity 3 months ago 67
@safewaysecurity Also ask them if they have a timetable for when they'll reverse their opposition to Citizens United. We would all like to know that.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@safewaysecurity Does it really matter? Unless of course you can point to an ACLU case where they're trying to get rid of the second amendment. No, can't find that? Didn't think so. We have the NRA for that. So you guys need to relax.
You know. Just looking over the comment section here today, I can only think one thing. Conservative talk radio must have found a new "liberal" organization to bust on. I've never seen so many people be so crazy about the ACLU.
bweazel 3 months ago
@bweazel It does matter. I actually LIKE the ACLU I just wish they supported ALL civil liberties and not just the ones that fit their agenda.
safewaysecurity 3 months ago
@safewaysecurity It doesn't matter. As long as they support the rest of them, there's really no point in making a fuss about what they don't support (in your opinion). There are plenty of other gun rights groups that would jump on any case trying to mess with the second amendment, so why are you all getting all crazy that the ACLU doesn't make it their sole purpose, when plenty of others do make it their sole purpose? It really shouldn't matter to you, since they're not attacking it.
bweazel 3 months ago 2
@bweazel I never said they should make it their sole purpose. I'm just saying they should protected and defend it just like they do for any other right enshrined in our founding document the Constitution. They explicitly endorse the "collective right" under the Second Amendment and believe the court in Heller(2008) and McDonald(2010) were wrong in their analysis that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense.
safewaysecurity 3 months ago
@safewaysecurity I think a bit part of why the ACLU does not do much with the 2nd Amendment is that it is already covered by the NRA. The ACLU has a budget of $85 million which is mean to cover the entire US constitution, the NRA has a budget of $205 million which is mean to cover only the 2nd Amendment. Is the ACLU has an increase in funding of 25 times, it would be reasonable to expect them to be the major defenders of the 2nd Amendment, but as it is, they can let the NRA take it.
Loathomar 3 months ago 2
@Loathomar It's not. They state on their site explicitly that they do not endorse the individual rights view of the Second Amendment and think the court was wrong in their interpretation. Only some state and local chapters of the ACLU endorse the individual rights view.
safewaysecurity 3 months ago
@safewaysecurity Yes, the ACLU does take the literal view of gun rights, that the state of the right for a free state and the federal government can not ban the states from having well regulated Militia. Some federal law have over stepped those rules and the NRA was the ones who fought those fights. Sadly, unlike free speech or free press, the US constitution added any "clause" to make them debatable. You can interpret the Constitution at some points, but most need none.
Loathomar 3 months ago
@Loathomar "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I don't see it saying anything about the right of militias or states. It's an individual ight to keep and bear arms. It's clear as day.
safewaysecurity 3 months ago
@safewaysecurity You're taking part of the text out, though. It points out that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. So there is militia and state right there. How you interpret those words, though...
PaganMars 2 months ago
@PaganMars It's a prefatory clause. All it says is that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It doesn't dictate anything. It's not a command or really any sort of limitation. However the second part saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the operative clause that gives the command and restricts the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. Pretty simple constitutional analysis.
safewaysecurity 2 months ago 3
@safewaysecurity It is true that if someone breaks into your home, you have the right to kill a person. But to take out the first part and say "you have the right to kill a person" and this is all the time, that is some bull. I can say for $10,000, you can have my car. But if you read it like you read the 2nd, you can have my car without payment. "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."
Loathomar 2 months ago
@Loathomar Yes but read what it says. All the first part says is that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It basically states a purpose before the operative clause saying that therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By stating the peoples right they ensure that the militia could never be disarmed because the people are the militia essentially. If you study history you would know this. Read some Stephen Halbrook books for something.
safewaysecurity 2 months ago
@safewaysecurity The major concern, and the main reason for the 2nd Amendment was not personal rights to bare arms, it was to stop the new formed Federal Government from disarming the state Militia's. It came as a compromise between the federalists and Anti-federalists. Some groups wanted a much broader 2nd Amendment, like the which included the right to bared arms from self defense but these where not chosen as the 2nd Amendment.
Loathomar 2 months ago
I would agree that if any state wanted to declare all their people part the militia, then the federal government has not right to restrict any guns from those people, even full auto, armor piercing guns, but that is up to the states. But to say the states have no right to regulate there "well regulated Militia" seems laughable. The fact that it is called a "well regulated Militia" means the there are regulations. "The people" without any regulations can't be a "well regulated Militia".
Loathomar 2 months ago
@Loathomar The entire idea of the bill of rights is to limit government's power to do anything regarding the freedom of the average man. Where do you get the idea that they chose that one amendment to limit what people could do and not the government's ability to mess with what people are doing?
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 Right, there is no question that the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to bare arms if part of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. But going from that to saying the 2nd Amendment clearly gives everyone the right to bare arms for any reason, is a huge leap to me. Like at the bill of rights it limits government's power, the question is by how much. And I say, it does not clearly give freedom to arms without regulations or restrictions.
Loathomar 2 months ago
@Loathomar ",the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " you're right, they put that in there by mistake... might as well ignore it.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
Now, just because, in my view, it is not given as a right that any should be able to have a gun without regulations or restrictions does not mean the government must or even should do much regulations or restrictions on gun, and almost any regulations or restrictions should come from the states and not the Fed.
Loathomar 2 months ago
@Loathomar This I can agree with, although the idea of restrictions or regulations on owning anything really is nothing but another way for the government to make us all slaves. every last one of us.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@Loathomar Just so that you know, the right to keep and bare arms exists because the founding fathers watched the British seize all weapons when they realized the people might revolt.
The first step to tyranny is disarmament.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 Good point. You should explain this to our POTUS as he has stated quite indignantly that "the US Constitution is a document of negative liberties." And thank the intellectual founders for that! Our rights go way beyond what the constitution states. US constitution states what government CAN"T do to it's citizens with respect to adopting law.
luke55664 2 months ago in playlist Reason.tv Interviews 2011
@Loathomar It's actually not true that if someone breaks into your home you have the right to kill them.. You have the right to defend yourself and your property, and if in doing so the thief should die you should not be put in jail or have charges pressed against you..
So your example was just as wrong as your idea of the 2nd amendment.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 I said "if someone breaks into your home, you have the right to kill a person" you said "not true that if someone breaks into your home you have the right to kill them" how is saying them same thing as I said make my statement not true. I was pointing out, if it you ignore the first part "if someone breaks into your home", then you have the right to kill anyone, any time, which is insane. That 1st part is very important and it change the meaning of the whole.
Loathomar 2 months ago
@Loathomar Far from The same thing. There are quite a number of cases in which someone killed a person breaking into their house and was charged, because there is a point at which it changes from the defense of you and your person to the murder of a human being, and you have no right to kill anyone. The way you put it is wrong all around and therefore it doesn't matter what the first part means to the second.. The way you use words is very important.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@safewaysecurity
Because it wasn't relevant to this topic and conversation.
Gammaclipper 3 months ago
@Gammaclipper It certainly is relevant when the ACLU claims to protect civil liberties, but then ignores the one human right that guarantees all other rights and liberties.
bcten22 2 months ago
@safewaysecurity Well they'd lose donations from liberals. And besides next to the NRA they would be redundant if they started going after gun laws.
FatherTime89 2 months ago
@FatherTime89 It's not redundant at all. It does not take a lot of money to submit an Amicus Brief. Liberal justices respect the ACLU VERY much and an endorsement of the individual rights view of the Second Amendment would work wonders in transforming the legal landscape. They have a lot of power.
safewaysecurity 2 months ago
@safewaysecurity No 2nd Amendment = No freedom whatsoever
iLuvSmartCars 2 months ago 3
dump city champs are dump city kings
onvogmasaj 3 months ago