for or against ACLU

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cool_chick
The basis of your conclusion "intentionally chosen..." appears to be derived on the fact that you don't agree with the interpretation and nothing else to substantiate this "conclusion". Faulty reasoning, and as such, noncredible, Pat.

Since no one forced the ACLU to adopt their conclusion, it must have been intentional. Accidental seems unlikely. My disagreement with their position has no bearing on their choice, which by logic was intentional.

Further, my position is based on historical fact, it has no logical challenges that can be made. Those that have attempted to make the "collective rights" challenge invariably use faulty logic or reinterpretation, or outright lies in some cases, of the founders words.

And last, remember, the Second Amendment requires governments to protect a right which is intrinsically yours as a human being. The Second Amendment, like all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, does not grant or create a right.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cool_chick
quote:Originally posted by fastpat
It was included to relate the individual right to armed self defense individually is understood,

By whom?

By anyone reading the document we call the Constitution as amended. It's written in plain, if slightly archaic, english and is easily understood. Only those wishing to define away rights protections attempt to "misunderstand" the words.

quote:and again, it's "a militia" which indicates militia in the non-specific sense, not "the militia" mentioned in the main body of the Constitution with regard to state and federal military power.

Per Fastpat's interpretation. That's the problem. The clause is too vague.

No, it's quite clear. You do need a firm grasp of grammar, true, but we don't write documents like the Constitution for the lowest of the educated, or shouldn't at least. It was expected then, and should be now, for you to have a good grasp of functional common law and english legal tradition.

[b]

Some consider it vague, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty narrow and accurate in my opinion. Further, it's written to apply to the state governments as well as the federal government. No government was to be allowed to restrict arms owned and possessed by individuals.

Actually, being precluded by "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," makes it vague. It can be interpreted either way. If that preclusion wasn't there, it would've been clear, yes. That preclusion makes it vague. Militia (which we have) or "individual" (which isn't mentioned, and isn't implied via the clause.

If anything, it implies the people have the right to a well armed militia.

Try this for logical reference, "A well read electorate, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Do you think that sentence restricts book possession to only the electorate?

Finally, here's a professional grammarian on the Second Amendment:
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT which should leave no doubt about the meaning.

[Seahawk]

Great discussion. The links have been very informative, especially the Unabridged Second Amendment.

[m21sniper]

I generally support the ACLUs existance and mission statement, even if most of the cases they pick to champion strike me as stupid.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Actually, Pat, it has nothing to do with "socialist leanings." It has to do with the way the ACLU and many have interpreted the 2nd amendment. They and some interpret it to mean a "well regulated militia having the right to bear arms"........which we have, we have a well armed militia in this country.

So no, it has nothing to do with "socialism", it has to do with their interpretation of 2nd amendment.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" obviously has nothing to do with a militia.

The phrase "the people" means the whole body of the people, always.

Make sure you read that unabridged link of the 2nd amendment Pat provided miss, you'll learn something.

[HardDrive]

I support the ACLU, and am perplexed as to how people could be so f*cking stupid as to label them a 'liberal' organzation.

Defending the constitution is a liberal cause?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by HardDrive
I support the ACLU, and am perplexed as to how people could be so f*cking stupid as to label them a 'liberal' organzation.

Defending the constitution is a liberal cause?

The idea is not liberal, but they are not true to the ideals. It's made up of lawyers man.....what do you expect? As Pat mentioned, they used to have an anti-gun page on their website.

[nostatic]

my son and i are a well armed militia. does that count?

[HardDrive]

Originally posted by lendaddy
The idea is not liberal, but they are not true to the ideals. It's made up of lawyers man.....what do you expect?

They are certainly 'selective' about the battles they pick. No denying that. But not to many groups have stepped up and defended the Ku Klux Klan, and they have. Repeatedly.

[Moneyguy1]

I am in agreement that bears should be armed.

Makes the odds when hunting a bit more even

[fastpat]

Originally posted by nostatic
my son and i are a well armed militia. does that count?

Under the law, every man over the age of 17 and not more than 45 is in the militia in America. See: USC TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 for the specific wording.

Supreme Court decision have declared the militia as being "the whole body of the people capable of acting in the defense of themselves, neighborhood, state, and nation". Supreme Court decisions have defined "the people" as those in America as citizens of the several states AND those having a reasonable attachment to the several states. That is, it's not just citizens, but foreign citizens residing here lawfully.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by HardDrive
and defended the Ku Klux Klan, and they have. Repeatedly.

Are you saying that is a Conservative cause? Otherwise I don't see the point.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by HardDrive
I support the ACLU, and am perplexed as to how people could be so f*cking stupid as to label them a 'liberal' organzation.

They're not a "liberal" organization per se, but their viewpoints on numerous cases they've taken to court are, without question, the views of those favoring an increase in government size and control over the lives of the people. That, in and of itself, makes the ACLU a "liberal" organization with the definition of "liberal' being an advocate of sociofascism. If, on the other hand, you define "liberal" as one who defends people from government, then the ACLU isn't liberal at all because they seldom do that.

Defending the constitution is a liberal cause?

They don't defend the Constitution from an original intent position, that makes them "liberal" under the common usage of the term.

For example, most people think of the ACLU as the primary defender of freedom of speech, yet they've never taken a serious case defending what's become known as "commercial speech" of which I'm aware. Too late, they have taken on cases against the Campaign Finance Reform Act, and I might add, acted in concert with the NRA on this issue, but so far no positive results.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by cool_chick
A militia is still not an individual. But why would they include "militia" if they meant individual?

Please note, this is not my position, but this is the ACLU's and many others' position. Me personally, I think the clause is too vague and I can see either interpretation.

Either way, the ACLU feels the constitutionality of this clause is intact, it's not because they're "socialists."

BULL****!!!! Why do the defend child molesters, that isn't in the Bill of Rights!! Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that you you should get special rights because who you choose to have sex with??? Why can't you yell FIRE in a crowded ares, doesn't the 1st give you that right?? OK, on this case, I think the school is going overboard, but what kind of dork would dress like that for a year book photo?? So hardrive,

Originally posted by HardDrive
I support the ACLU, and am perplexed as to how people could be so f*cking stupid as to label them a 'liberal' organzation.

Defending the constitution is a liberal cause?

Show us where in the Constitution it gives some one the right to advertise for children to molest?? Says alot when you support (your membership dues fund the defense of groups like nambla) a group that sues the Boy Scouts of America yet defend child molester groups like nambla ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA ) convicted felons, terrorist and illegal aliens, non of which should be protected by the Constitution. You have to be totally f*cking stupoid to support such a group. I'm pretty confident that the founding fathers meant to protect gun owners over giving special rights to gays. When they wrote it, how many homes had guns in them?? Think about that!!

[sammyg2]

Originally posted by HardDrive
"I support the ACLU"

I rest my case

[Joeaksa]

The ACLU as an idea is a good institution. In reality its a POS organization and needs overhauling.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
BULL****!!!! Why do the defend child molesters, that isn't in the Bill of Rights!! Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that you you should get special rights because who you choose to have sex with??? Why can't you yell FIRE in a crowded ares, doesn't the 1st give you that right?? OK, on this case, I think the school is going overboard, but what kind of dork would dress like that for a year book photo?? So hardrive, Show us where in the Constitution it gives some one the right to advertise for children to molest?? Says alot when you support (your membership dues fund the defense of groups like nambla) a group that sues the Boy Scouts of America yet defend child molester groups like nambla ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA ) convicted felons, terrorist and illegal aliens, non of which should be protected by the Constitution. You have to be totally f*cking stupoid to support such a group. I'm pretty confident that the founding fathers meant to protect gun owners over giving special rights to gays. When they wrote it, how many homes had guns in them?? Think about that!!

Their defense of the groups mentioned above isn't an issue with me, it's their attempts to sue government into expansion, and their claim of rights to certain government services is my issue with them; that and their failure to defend the full Bill of Rights, which includes their very weak defense of property rights, so weak that other organizations have been founded to do what the ACLU should have been doing but didn't.

Two examples are the Fully Informed Jury Association and The Institute for Justice.

[Moneyguy1]

The ACLU is a reprehensible, unAmerican, despicable, obstructive organization until it comes to the aid of something you are in favor of.

Ain't that the case?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
The ACLU is a reprehensible, unAmerican, despicable, obstructive organization until it comes to the aid of something you are in favor of.

Ain't that the case?

It is for some people. I don't want them disbanded, which is the position of some in this thread, but won't contribute to them until we're in close agreement on the defense against lawless government.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fastpat
By anyone reading the document we call the Constitution as amended. It's written in plain, if slightly archaic, english and is easily understood. Only those wishing to define away rights protections attempt to "misunderstand" the words.

With all due respect, no, it is not clear. If it was intended to be individual, there would be no need to include either (1) the word militia, and the words (2) well-regulated. Try as you might to claim it's not vague by capturing and highlighting only 1/2 of the the sentence as proof of "clarity", the sentence as you quote is not complete, and when the sentence is presented in it's entirety, as written, it's vague.

No, it's quite clear. You do need a firm grasp of grammar, true, but we don't write documents like the Constitution for the lowest of the educated, or shouldn't at least. It was expected then, and should be now, for you to have a good grasp of functional common law and english legal tradition.

Whew, well then, it's a good thing I do have a firm grasp of those things.

Try this for logical reference, "A well read electorate, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Do you think that sentence restricts book possession to only the electorate?

Doesn't matter what you or I think, this clause doesn't exist.

Finally, here's a professional grammarian on the Second Amendment:
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT which should leave no doubt about the meaning. [/B]

Yes, and because the clause is VAGUE...get it, VAGUE (remember, you claim to have a firm grasp of the english language, surely you know what VAGUE means), this is one of two potential interpretations to this VAGUE clause.