ACLU: Refuse to Surrender Your Freedom

[QueenAdrock]

Take the ACLU's "Refuse to Surrender Your Freedom" Pledge (http://www.aclu.org/refusetosurrender/?orgid=EA111704A)

Today our most fundamental freedoms are in jeopardy. Only a bold, spirited movement of people like you who refuse to surrender your freedoms can protect our civil liberties. Take the pledge to refuse to surrender your freedom now.

Come on. All the cool kids are doing it. :cool:

[ASsman]

According to a bumper sticker ACLU is communist... sooo I wouldn't trust them if I were you.

[paulk]

The ACLU can go fuck themselves for making huge issues from what are non-issues when compared to the abuses by the U.S. government of our Second Amendment rights.

[Paul Nice]

The ACLU can go fuck themselves for making huge issues from what are non-issues when compared to the abuses by the U.S. government of our Second Amendment rights.

I'm all for the protection of our Civil Liberties, but you are absolutely correct. The ACLU only wants to protect the Civil Liberties they find politically palatable. They are a left wing organization protecting the freedoms the left wing cherishes and discarding those they don't.

[STANKY808]

I'm all for the protection of our Civil Liberties, but you are absolutely correct. The ACLU only wants to protect the Civil Liberties they find politically palatable. They are a left wing organization protecting the freedoms the left wing cherishes and discarding those they don't.

So you think the KKK is "politcally palatable"?
http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=10296&c=86

And Rush Limbaugh?
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14698&c=27

IMO it seems to me they stick with their ideals regardless of whether or not the case is a popular cause.

[infidel]

I don't know, anything that defends Rush seems like an immoral outfit.

[STANKY808]

I don't know, anything that defends Rush seems like an immoral outfit.

I can see that, but, the point remains just because Rush is an ass and has said derogatory things in the past about the ACLU, they see the issue, in this case privacy, as one worth fighting for.

[Echewta]

Oh my gosh! The ACLU only goes after causes it deems worthy! Therefore, it most be horrible! Oh dear! Oh no!
If they ACLU goes after lame stuff, its up for the courts to descide. They don't win all their cases. And the ones they do, I guess they were right then uh?

ACLU is leftest? I had no idea!!!!! Wow!

Well, where is the rightest organization that big time and take personal liberties to court etc. on principle? Oh. I see. Guess they are out defending tabacco compaines and Enron.

[Cashew]

Correction, ALL of your freedoms ARE being violated.

[paulk]

Exactly. It annoys me that the organization that calls itself the American Civil Liberties Union only makes efforts to protect certain civil liberties (which are nonetheless important and vital), contributing to the common view that the 2nd amendment is somehow less important or less relevant than the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

[QueenAdrock]

The reason why the 2nd amendment isn't being fought for rather than I dunno, free speech and the such, is that the 2nd amendment rights aren't being challenged in any way. Rednecks like to say that by not allowing assault weapons, their rights are "challenged" in that they're going to be forced to be packing pistols instead. Boo-hoo. I personally don't believe ANYONE in the US should have the right to carry a weapon that has a sole purpose of killing human beings, because Americans are irrational and impulsive, and when you add a gun into the mix it leads to murder.

Nonetheless, 2nd amendment rights don't need to be fought for. Rednecks can have guns, shotguns, pistols, magnums, whatever the hell they want. They just whine and complain cuz they want bigger, badder guns, and if the US doesn't give it to them, they'll raise hell. The NRA also says that by not allowing fingerprintless guns, their rights are being challenged. They have all the rights that were given to them under the 2nd amendment, if they want more rights it's just because they want a more efficient way to kill people. The NRA are a bunch of scared pussies who have self esteem issues and therefore need to feel like big men by carrying weapons that say "Hey. Don't talk to me that way, I can kill you." They can all go choke on a cock and die.

[Beth]

the second amendment isn't your true problem, paulk. your problem is with other federal government provisions and / or your state constitution.

historically speaking, none of the first 10 amendments were to apply to the states, only to the federal government; the states were to come up with their own provisions for governing their citizens. your state constitution can give you more protection than the US constitution, but it cannot give you less.

[Documad]

Exactly. It annoys me that the organization that calls itself the American Civil Liberties Union only makes efforts to protect certain civil liberties (which are nonetheless important and vital), contributing to the common view that the 2nd amendment is somehow less important or less relevant than the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Frankly, the 2nd Amendment is less important today than the other amendments. And there are some mightly important amendments after the 10th too.

I've never encountered any trouble purchasing a gun or ammo. What exactly do you want that you can't buy in the US today? Or are you a felon?

[ASsman]

I'm saving up for a S&M 1911, and AK-47 SM.

[ASsman]

Run nigga, else I will put cap in yo ass. .45 to be exact.

[QueenAdrock]

Spoken like a true jackass, sisko. Bravo.

[ASsman]

This message is hidden because gmsisko1 is a moron.

[QueenAdrock]

HAHAHA (y)

[infidel]

This message is hidden because gmsisko1 is a bushwad.

[D_Raay]

I've never seen a homeless guy with a bottle of gatorade.

[ASsman]

I've seen one pissing into one.

[QueenAdrock]

Classy.

[paulk]

The reason why the 2nd amendment isn't being fought for rather than I dunno, free speech and the such, is that the 2nd amendment rights aren't being challenged in any way. Rednecks like to say that by not allowing assault weapons, their rights are "challenged" in that they're going to be forced to be packing pistols instead. Boo-hoo. I personally don't believe ANYONE in the US should have the right to carry a weapon that has a sole purpose of killing human beings, because Americans are irrational and impulsive, and when you add a gun into the mix it leads to murder.

Nonetheless, 2nd amendment rights don't need to be fought for. Rednecks can have guns, shotguns, pistols, magnums, whatever the hell they want. They just whine and complain cuz they want bigger, badder guns, and if the US doesn't give it to them, they'll raise hell. The NRA also says that by not allowing fingerprintless guns, their rights are being challenged. They have all the rights that were given to them under the 2nd amendment, if they want more rights it's just because they want a more efficient way to kill people. The NRA are a bunch of scared pussies who have self esteem issues and therefore need to feel like big men by carrying weapons that say "Hey. Don't talk to me that way, I can kill you." They can all go choke on a cock and die.

So would your complete and total ban on firearms extend to members of state and federal law enforcement agencies? Not only off duty, but on duty as well? I would hope so, or you're even more irrational than this post makes you seem.

But are Americans actually impulsive and irrational?

Are you suggesting that Americans act guided by nothing further than animalistic impulses?

If that is the case, then how can they be trusted with alcohol, drugs, motor vehicles, kitchen knives--anything at all? Should the government be entrusted with our well-being; should it protect us from ourselves?

In any case, who makes laws, who enforces them? Other humans do. Do you honestly trust elected officials to account for your best interest?

My point is:
"Governments should not possess instruments of coercion and violence denied to their citizens."
-Edgar A. Suter

I like how you stereotype gun owners and those opposed to gun control as Rednecks. Kinda reminds me of how gmsisko's crew calls you all inch-whippers or bed wetting commie pinkos or supporters of the nanny state or whatever it is.

And meh, you're right about the NRA choking on a cock. They have practically authored major gun control bills in the past

the second amendment isn't your true problem, paulk. your problem is with other federal government provisions and / or your state constitution.

Yes, I know--unconstitutional state and federal actions which the ACLU (and pretty much everyone else) has turned a blind eye to.

[Ace42]

So would your complete and total ban on firearms extend to members of state and federal law enforcement agencies? Not only off duty, but on duty as well? I would hope so, or you're even more irrational than this post makes you seem.

Just like all the other numerous "irrational" countries in the world that do not afford their citzenry the right to firearms, and DO have armed law enforcement agents.

These numerous countries which miraculously haven't descended into police-states and actually have MORE freedoms than the US, and have been as such since before the US existed are just ticking timebombs, right?

Ticking timebombs with much lower incidences of gun-crime.

[QueenAdrock]

So would your complete and total ban on firearms extend to members of state and federal law enforcement agencies? Not only off duty, but on duty as well? I would hope so, or you're even more irrational than this post makes you seem.

Let me clarify. I never said I would want a complete and total ban on firearms, because yeah, some people do need them to uphold the law. I said that I don't believe "anyone" should have the right to own a weapon used to kill people, meaning your average Joe Shmoe who just wants one because they're living a life of fear.

But are Americans actually impulsive and irrational?

Are you suggesting that Americans act guided by nothing further than animalistic impulses?

If that is the case, then how can they be trusted with alcohol, drugs, motor vehicles, kitchen knives--anything at all? Should the government be entrusted with our well-being; should it protect us from ourselves?

Exactly. Americans do without thinking, they are impulsive and irrational. They CAN'T be trusted with alcohol, drugs, cars, or knives. Alcohol is legal for reasons unknown to me, drugs are not. Cars in this country require very little training to receive a license to drive and there are a lot of dangerous drivers out there, and I can't tell you how many idiots accidentally slit themselves on knives. People are stupid, I admit. However, alcohol, drugs, cars, and kitchen knives have purposes other than KILLING HUMANS. By allowing citizens to own weapons that serve NO other purpose than to kill people, what kind of message does this show? You can't have the government control everything that might have the possibility to kill people, because pretty much NOTHING would be allowed, not even shoelaces or belts. However, I don't believe that guns have any purpose. Period. You own a gun to threaten or kill someone. That's it.


I like how you stereotype gun owners and those opposed to gun control as Rednecks. Kinda reminds me of how gmsisko's crew calls you all inch-whippers or bed wetting commie pinkos or supporters of the nanny state or whatever it is.

Read again. Never once did I say that gun owners were rednecks, I said that rednecks were gun owners. There's a big difference.

Nonetheless, you stated that the ACLU should fight for "all rights" of the people. If there's no problems with the 2nd amendement right being violated, why the hell should you fight for it? If W was proposing a ban on firearms, THEN I could see your post having validity. But it's not in jeopardy, so by you saying the ACLU is biased is ridiculous to me. It would be arguing over non-issues.

[paulk]

Just like all the other numerous "irrational" countries in the world that do not afford their citzenry the right to firearms, and DO have armed law enforcement agents.

These numerous countries which miraculously haven't descended into police-states and actually have MORE freedoms than the US, and have been as such since before the US existed are just ticking timebombs, right?

Ticking timebombs with much lower incidences of gun-crime.

Historically, gun control results in more deaths than it prevents.

Case in point: The 1938 German Weapons Law resulted in at least 6 million deaths.

[paulk]

Eh, there's not much point in going any further, as we're obviously fundamentally different. Whereas you would willingly entrust others with your well-being and would have me do the same, I trust only myself and hold only myself accountable for my actions.

[QueenAdrock]

See, that's the problem. I absolutely agree that I should hold myself accountable for my actions. It's the other idiots in this country that I believe should be kept on a tight leash by the government. There within lies the problem.

I should probably move to Canada.

[D_Raay]

They should make guns that also serve other purposes. Maybe doubling as a toothbrush, or a bottle opener, or hey, and for the ladies out there, maybe a french tickler...

[Documad]

Yes, I know--unconstitutional state and federal actions which the ACLU (and pretty much everyone else) has turned a blind eye to.
I have no idea what you are talking about. What actions? Why do you think they are unconstitutional? And what exactly have you been denied that you need? No constitutional rights are without limit.

[Ace42]

Historically, gun control results in more deaths than it prevents.

Case in point: The 1938 German Weapons Law resulted in at least 6 million deaths.

Yeah, because if the Germans all had guns, they'd've started a revolution against Hitler, the guy the majority of them voted into power, overthrown his army, who they actually made up the numbers for, and prevented him invading czechoslovakia, which they all wanted...

Of course, the US's right to bear arms, that is why they are all over-throwing Bush at the moment.

Oh wait, they aren't, the express purpose of their 2nd amendment rights has not been enacted, and a corrupt and evil government is still in power. Funny how the Germans using guns could've saved 6 million people, but the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the millions of Afghanis don't get protected by the US having silly gunlaws.

[ASsman]

My 1911 will serve just that purpose.

"It was a bloodless coupe... all smotherings"

[paulk]

Yeah, because if the Germans all had guns, they'd've started a revolution against Hitler, the guy the majority of them voted into power, overthrown his army, who they actually made up the numbers for, and prevented him invading czechoslovakia, which they all wanted...


The law in question provided for firearm ownership and carry, including handguns, by law-abiding German citizens. (In fact, as written they were much more lenient than the current gun laws in the U.S.) However, at that time Jews were no longer considered German citizens.

[ASsman]

I wouldn't trust a Jew with a gun.... They go off and start a their own nation and shit.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, then they'd take all the doctors out of America too. We'd be screwed.

[Paul Nice]

So you think the KKK is "politcally palatable"?
http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=10296&c=86

And Rush Limbaugh?
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14698&c=27


Yes - Freedom of Speech is a politically palatable issue for the left.

IMO it seems to me they stick with their ideals regardless of whether or not the case is a popular cause.

Your opinion is off base. They do not and will not protect the rights guaranteed in the second amendment. Even worse, they do not and will not protect the rights guaranteed in the tenth amendment.

[Documad]

They do not and will not protect the rights guaranteed in the second amendment. Even worse, they do not and will not protect the rights guaranteed in the tenth amendment.
Please explain the 10th Amendment analysis. Are you saying "the Left" should be doing something, or the ACLU? What should they be doing? Why should the ACLU or the Left do anything about the 2nd Amendment when the NRA is overdoing it brilliantly?

And perhaps you can explain exactly what 2nd Amendment right has been unconstitutionally curtailed? Do you think felons have a constitutional right to arms?

[paulk]

The NRA is a joke.

[Rosie Cotton]

The NRA is a joke.

Get your filthy hands off of my AK-47, you damn dirty hippies.

[Whois]

I'm saving up for a S&M 1911, and AK-47 SM.

Forget the AK-47...get a AK-74, the 5.45mm round produces some nasty wounds.

[Whois]

The NRA is a joke.

"Vote for Bush, he'll get rid of the Assault Weapon Ban." - NRA

"The federal assault weapons ban is constitutional." - AG John Asscrotch

Now I laugh whenever they call for a donation, I'd rather give to GOA.

[ASsman]

Forget the AK-47...get a AK-74, the 5.45mm round produces some nasty wounds.
Can I still call it a AK-47?

[Paul Nice]

Please explain the 10th Amendment analysis. Are you saying "the Left" should be doing something, or the ACLU?

All right thinking Americans should be doing something. I wouldn't expect the Left to, however, because they hate the Tenth Amendment - it guarantees that the several free and independent states hold power and through them the people, and the very idea of the People having power as opposed to the Federal gov't is anathema to the Left. That is why they constantly fight to transfer power from the People to the Fed by confiscating our wealth. The ACLU, as sworn defenders of the Constituion, SHOULD be fighting to preserve the Tenth but they won't either because they are Leftists and therefore by definition hypocrites.

What should they be doing? Why should the ACLU or the Left do anything about the 2nd Amendment when the NRA is overdoing it brilliantly?

If the NRA wasn't the ACLU would still do nothing about it. Read their charter. They don't believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms (ROFL). Or at least that is the line they peddle so as to keep their glaring and perverse hypocricy somewhat on the DL.

And perhaps you can explain exactly what 2nd Amendment right has been unconstitutionally curtailed? Do you think felons have a constitutional right to arms?

I'm not considering felons. So called "assault weapons" bans are by definition an infringement. As though any "arms" are not assault weapons.

[ASsman]

The ACLU, as sworn defenders of the Constituion, SHOULD be fighting to preserve the Tenth but they won't either because they are Leftists and therefore by definition hypocrites.
Do you see the Contitution as one thing? Or as the Constitution and all it's amendments? Which are they defending?

[Paul Nice]

Do you see the Contitution as one thing? Or as the Constitution and all it's amendments? Which are they defending?

I'm referring specifically to the Bill of Rights.