The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

JedPerkins · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
Can you demonstrate where the ACLU has taken a case in defense of the 2nd Amendment?

Well, I think first we need to get on the same page. The 2nd amendment states:

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.

Nuclear weapons clearly fall under "arms", but I think it is fairly reasonable to say that citizens should not be allowed to keep and bear nuclear weapons. I was trying to determine if you agree with this. If you do, then we would be agreed that the second amendment only applies to a subset of arms. I would then ask: Why do guns fall within this subset, but not nuclear weapons?

Surely you see gun registration laws as a lesser degree of infringement as flat-out not allowing you to have a nuclear weapon... right?

Electric Skeptic · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
It's easy enough to find

I don't think anyone has even attempted to refute it. The efforts here have been more along of justifying the ACLU's support for Phelps

This is just dishonest. Niether you nor anyone has supported the claim that the ACLU support Phelps; it is merely obvious that they support his right to free speech.

MachZer0 said:
The Constitution

Where in the constitution do you find a source for anti-sodomy laws?

MachZer0 said:
I said, and I meant, the ACLU's support for Phelps. And I don't see anybody disproving that, but rahter trying to justify it

Nobody's bothered to try to disprove it because nothing you or anyone else has said or done has provided the slightest evidence that it's true.

MachZer0 said:
That's why I said they should be the American [some] Civil Liberties Union.Because they aren't at all concerned about all rights or even everyone's rights, only those that promote their communist agenda

That's just laughable.

MachZer0 said:
We've all seen those cases, many of them posted earlier here. I don't see how that changes their agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if they took a few of those just to present a facade of fairness. I don't believe their links to communism can be disputed adequately though.

This is just perfect. As soon as cases are posted which evidence that you are wrong, you just dismiss them as a 'facade'. You've decided to hate the ACLU without regard for what they actually do. By your logic, I could say that you are an atheist - you just keep up a facade of christianity.

MachZer0 said:
The facade would be to conceal the double standard, but it only conceals it from those who are likeminded with them. The ACLU's involvement in a few cases hardly matches the massive caseload on the other side.

It doesn't match the 'massive' caseload because traditionally in the US, it is not Christianity's rights which are being threatened. Where they have been, the ACLU has stood up for those rights, regardless of the fact that you just want to ignore those cases.

MachZer0 said:
And they do not support the first amendment rights of all.

Yes, they do.

MachZer0 said:
They do not support the free exercise of religion, except when it suits them,

Yes, they do.

MachZer0 said:
and they definitely do not support the freedom of speech for all, as seen in the ACLU's sponsorship of censorship in the case of the valedictorian

That's just false. The ACLU merely wanted her stopped from evangelising at a government sponsored activity. She was 'censored' to precisely the same extent that I would be censored from espousing Satan worship at a courthouse opening.

Nathan Poe · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
One I doubt the ACLU would defend

Doubt all you want, it's not as if you'd ask them for their assistance anyway.

What part of the right of the PEOPLE, is so difficult to understand

Is it really that simple? Turning all of the US into one large shooting gallery without anything even remotely resembling order?

Didn't SCOTUS dodge that bullet (no pun intended) well enough in US v Miller (1939)?

Oh, let me guess, "Miller was another Leftist plot"?

Why do you insist on only reading half the Amendment?

It's not about me

I know, I'm just curious.

A scam to collect taxpayer money. That's plenty.

It must be some scam -- every lawyer in the country is profiting by it.

Groups that pick and choose which rights to defend in order to push an ideology and then force the taxpayer to pad their pockets. Clear enough?

Wow -- is that how Rep. Hostettler is wording it in his bill?

The gist of it is that private legal organizations should not be allowed to pick their battles -- Choice is bad!

Electric Skeptic · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
Right now, the only judges who can rule against abortion are Supreme Court judges. If the Supreme Court judges ruled against it, they would not be creating new law, but rather restoring the law to it's proper place, per the Constitution

They would be activists. It doesn't matter if they are restoring the law to its 'proper place' (read: a place that you agree with). They would be taknig a position on a controversial issue, and that makes them activists by your own definition. Remember the dictionary:

The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause.

a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal

YOU wanted to stretch definitions like that to the judiciary - fine. They apply equally to judges YOU agree with.

nvxplorer · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
That has nothing to do with penumbra and inferences, so there isn't much to chew on

Oh dear. If you don't see how the Ninth Amendment has everything to do with penumbra, then you haven't a clue as to what you're arguing.

This thread is like a strawman of evolution. The only difference is that you are setting up a strawman of American constitutional law and procedure. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject before pursuing this any further.

nvxplorer · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
We've all seen those cases, many of them posted earlier here. I don't see how that changes their agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if they took a few of those just to present a facade of fairness. I don't believe their links to communism can be disputed adequately though.

Hilarious. The ACLU defends Christians as a coverup of its evil leftist conspiracy to rule the world!

This, together with the 60-some pages of nonsensical, erroneous babble, has me ready to call GP Poe's law.

notto · Aug 15, 2006

nvxplorer said:
Hilarious. The ACLU defends Christians as a coverup of its evil leftist conspiracy to rule the world!

The ACLU covers their double standard by not having a double standard.

Those commie atheist Christ haters sure are brilliant.

I would challenge those who suggest that ACLU has a double standard to compose a list of cases where they think the ACLU has opposed individual Christian rights to free speech that compares in any way to the numerous examples of them supporting the religious free speech of individuals when encroached on by the government.

Remember, only individuals have free speech rights and rights are only things that ALL people have, not specifically selected government endorsed individuals.

If the ACLU is wrong, I don't want to be right.

MachZer0 · Aug 15, 2006

JedPerkins said:
Well, I think first we need to get on the same page. The 2nd amendment states:

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.

Nuclear weapons clearly fall under "arms", but I think it is fairly reasonable to say that citizens should not be allowed to keep and bear nuclear weapons. I was trying to determine if you agree with this. If you do, then we would be agreed that the second amendment only applies to a subset of arms. I would then ask: Why do guns fall within this subset, but not nuclear weapons?

Surely you see gun registration laws as a lesser degree of infringement as flat-out not allowing you to have a nuclear weapon... right?

What does that have to do with the reticence of the ACLU regarding the civil rights of Americans as regards the 2nd amendment?

MachZer0 · Aug 15, 2006

Electric Skeptic said:
Where in the constitution do you find a source for anti-sodomy laws?

If it's not enumerated in the Constitution, it falls to the states to decide. Sodomy is a states rights issue

This is just perfect. As soon as cases are posted which evidence that you are wrong, you just dismiss them as a 'facade'. You've decided to hate the ACLU without regard for what they actually do. By your logic, I could say that you are an atheist - you just keep up a facade of christianity.

The context of my question was the 2nd amendment, the answer to y question wwas to post cases involving Christians. Somebody answered a question I never asked, but failed to answer the question I did ask

That's just false. The ACLU merely wanted her stopped from evangelising at a government sponsored activity. She was 'censored' to precisely the same extent that I would be censored from espousing Satan worship at a courthouse opening.

The ACLU chose their radical left wing interpretation of the establishment clause to trump the free exercise clause and freedom of speech. In other words, the ACLU supported censorship

MachZer0 · Aug 15, 2006

Nathan Poe said:
Why do you insist on only reading half the Amendment?

The people who read the entire amendment aree the ones who notice that it affords the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE. Those who see it as a right for the militia to bear arms are the ones who only read half, the half that fits their personal viewpoint.

Wow -- is that how Rep. Hostettler is wording it in his bill?[/QUOTE]Did I say it was. But now that you bring it u, this is an example of twisting words to make a point, which is what has happened with the ACLU and the activist judges

The gist of it is that private legal organizations should not be allowed to pick their battles -- Choice is bad!

At least not at taxpayrer expense

tulc · Aug 15, 2006

So after 650 post (minus the occasional flame) we are left with: The ACLU supports Phelps right to be despicble in public? As well as for prolifers to protest, Christians should be allowed to preach (but they only take these cases to try and trick people) and they don't do anything for people who want to own guns?
tulc(how's that?)

MachZer0 · Aug 15, 2006

tulc said:
So after 650 post (minus the occasional flame) we are left with: The ACLU supports Phelps right to be despicble in public? As well as for prolifers to protest, Christians should be allowed to preach (but they only take these cases to try and trick people) and they don't do anything for people who want to own guns?
tulc(how's that?)

And they promote censorship while defending only those rights that fit their leftis agenda. And thanks for pointing out those flames

tulc · Aug 15, 2006

And they promote censorship while defending only those rights that fit their leftis agenda.

Ahh I forgot that one! "They also act like Americans!" (thanks for reminding me Mach!)

And thanks for pointing out those flames

well one of them was mine, so no problem

tulc(back from driving for a minute)

Nathan Poe · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
What does that have to do with the reticence of the ACLU regarding the civil rights of Americans as regards the 2nd amendment?

Because contrary to what the NRA would have you believe, the 2nd Amendment does not grant an absolute right for everybody and his dog to own a gun.

What the 2nd Amendment does explicitly say is that people have the right to own firearms for the purpose of serving in a well-regulated militia.

So, how does one "regulate" a militia without regulating its weapons?

Furthermore, States do have the right to regulate (not ban) the ownership of firearms as necessary to maintian public order, so long as ownership is not prohibited outright (no point in an unarmed militia) -- Look up Presser v Illinois (1886) for this sinister "Leftist" SCOTUS ruling.

No doubt former Chief Justice Warren Burger is too leftist for you liking (odd for a Nixon appointee), but perhaps you should listen to him anyway:

Burger said:
This [The Second Amendment] has been the subject of the greatest fraud -- I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? . . .
I don't want to get sued for slander, but I repeat that [the NRA has] misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see -- and I am a gun man. I have guns. I've been a hunter ever since I was a boy. . . The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the ‘state armies’ – ‘the militia’ – would be maintained for the defense of the state. … The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Feel free to ignore at your leisure.

But by and large, this has been SCOTUS' position on the Second Amendment, and the ACLU hapens to agree with it. And it's not in any danger, unless it's abused by those who would turn the USA into a shooting gallery.

Nathan Poe · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
The people who read the entire amendment aree the ones who notice that it affords the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE. Those who see it as a right for the militia to bear arms are the ones who only read half, the half that fits their personal viewpoint.

So you agree with the what, but not the why.

Did I say it was.

My bad; I assumed you had a point.

But now that you bring it u, this is an example of twisting words to make a point, which is what has happened with the ACLU and the activist judges

Still assuming -- I need to work on that.

At least not at taxpayrer expense

What part of "Donations" don't you get?

nvxplorer · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
The people who read the entire amendment aree the ones who notice that it affords the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE. Those who see it as a right for the militia to bear arms are the ones who only read half, the half that fits their personal viewpoint.

LOL

Do you know what a militia is? If you did, you wouldn't make such a nonsensical distinction between the People and the militia.

Let me help you out. The militia is composed of civilians (the People), whereas the military is composed of soldiers (the government). See the difference?

MachZer0 · Aug 15, 2006

tulc said:
Ahh I forgot that one! "They also act like Americans!" (thanks for reminding me Mach!)

More like communists

MachZer0 · Aug 15, 2006

Nathan Poe said:
Because contrary to what the NRA would have you believe, the 2nd Amendment does not grant an absolute right for everybody and his dog to own a gun.

What the 2nd Amendment does explicitly say is that people have the right to own firearms for the purpose of serving in a well-regulated militia.

So, how does one "regulate" a militia without regulating its weapons?

Furthermore, States do have the right to regulate (not ban) the ownership of firearms as necessary to maintian public order, so long as ownership is not prohibited outright (no point in an unarmed militia) -- Look up Presser v Illinois (1886) for this sinister "Leftist" SCOTUS ruling.

No doubt former Chief Justice Warren Burger is too leftist for you liking (odd for a Nixon appointee), but perhaps you should listen to him anyway:

Feel free to ignore at your leisure.

But by and large, this has been SCOTUS' position on the Second Amendment, and the ACLU hapens to agree with it. And it's not in any danger, unless it's abused by those who would turn the USA into a shooting gallery.

It's funny how some on the left can interpret "Congress shall make no law" into an all encompassing ban of mostly Christian displays of anything on public grounds, but can turn around and claim that "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean shall not be infringed. And I don't agree with Burger, regardless of who appointed him.

MachZer0 · Aug 15, 2006

Nathan Poe said:
What part of "Donations" don't you get?

The part that comes from taxes

Nathan Poe · Aug 15, 2006

MachZer0 said:
It's funny how some on the left can interpret "Congress shall make no law" into an all encompassing ban of mostly Christian displays of anything on public grounds,

Want some cheese to go with that whine?

but can turn around and claim that "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean shall not be infringed.

Are you in the National Guard? Is their right to be armed infringed in any way?

And I don't agree with Burger, regardless of who appointed him.

Of course you don't. He's too leftist for you.

But how do you feel about Presser v Illinois? Unlike you, SCOTUS can't just arbitrarily overturn its previous decisions without someone whining about "making new law."

The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency