The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

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?

Your point? The 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of those civilians to bear arms.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The part that comes from taxes

None of it comes from taxes. Where are getting these lies from, and why do you insist on spreading them?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Your point? The 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of those civilians to bear arms.

For the purpose of allowing the State to form a well-regulated militia. You're still only reading the half you like.

The phrase "well-regulated" explains everything.

 

[Nathan Poe]

More like communists

Ah, we forgot the classic "ACLU are commies!!!!!!111oneoneone!" hysteria.

 

[nvxplorer]

Your point? The 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of those civilians to bear arms.

A well regulated militia.

Twisting others' words is a sign of dishonesty. Twisting one's own words is a sign of delusion.

 

[nvxplorer]

.

 

[MachZer0]

A well regulated militia.

Twisting others' words is a sign of dishonesty. Twisting one's own words is a sign of delusion.

The amendment is clear stating the right of the people.. But either way, using your interpretation or mine, what is the ACLU's track record on defending the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The amendment is clear stating the right of the people..

And the reason... which you continually ignore. Besides, no amendment is absolute. Laws can be passed restricting any amendment if a sufficient reason exists.

We have freedom of expression, but anti-Obscenity laws.

We have freedom of the press, but they can still be sued for libel.

We have freedom of Speech, but it doesn't cover death threats.

Why then should the second amendment be sacrosanct, if none of the others are?

But either way, using your interpretation or mine, what is the ACLU's track record on defending the 2nd Amendment?

About the same as their track record of defending the Third Amendment. Are you going to whine about that next? Might as well run down the Bill of Rights in order...

Besides, would anyone persuing a 2nd Amendment case even accept the ACLU's aid? Remember, in some of their eyes, Mach, even you're too leftist for their liking.

 

[nvxplorer]

The amendment is clear stating the right of the people.

The militia and the People are one and the same. Do you really not understand that?

But either way, using your interpretation or mine, what is the ACLU's track record on defending the 2nd Amendment?

This has already been addressed.


No one's right to bear arms has been infringed. Your claims are a strawman. This entire thread is a strawman. I think we should rename it "The Infinite Scarecrow."

Do you understand the word "regulated?" That's what the Constitution states. If you ignore that word, you are an activist. That would make you a leftist, by your own definition. Seems to fit. As your idea of a leftist is "anyone who disagrees with me," and you routinely contradict yourself, you therefore disagree with yourself, making you a leftist. And that's a strict constuctionist viewpoint!

(I am required to register (register!) my vehicle. Why is my state trying to ban automobiles?)

 

[Nathan Poe]

On a side note, Mach -- being the Strict Constitutionalist that you claim to be, are you in favor of obscenity?

 

[JustOneWay]

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"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."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
[/FONT]​

 

[MachZer0]

And the reason... which you continually ignore. Besides, no amendment is absolute. Laws can be passed restricting any amendment if a sufficient reason exists.

A simple reading of the Federalist papers, particularly #46 would dispel the rumor that I am erroeously ignoring the militia portion of the amendment

We have freedom of expression, but anti-Obscenity laws.

We have freedom of the press, but they can still be sued for libel.

We have freedom of Speech, but it doesn't cover death threats.

Why then should the second amendment be sacrosanct, if none of the others are?

All based on misinterpretations of the Constitution



About the same as their track record of defending the Third Amendment. Are you going to whine about that next? Might as well run down the Bill of Rights in order...

Besides, would anyone persuing a 2nd Amendment case even accept the ACLU's aid? Remember, in some of their eyes, Mach, even you're too leftist for their liking.[/quote]

 

[MachZer0]

The militia and the People are one and the same. Do you really not understand that?

And without arms, there is no militia, thus the people have the right to keep and bear arms

This has already been addressed

No one's right to bear arms has been infringed. Your claims are a strawman. This entire thread is a strawman. I think we should rename it "The Infinite Scarecrow."

Actually, I offred examples where the right to bear arms has been infringed. Where was the ACLU?

Do you understand the word "regulated?" That's what the Constitution states. If you ignore that word, you are an activist. That would make you a leftist, by your own definition. Seems to fit. As your idea of a leftist is "anyone who disagrees with me," and you routinely contradict yourself, you therefore disagree with yourself, making you a leftist. And that's a strict constuctionist viewpoint!

The militia cannot be regulated unless the citizentry is armed.

(I am required to register (register!) my vehicle. Why is my state trying to ban automobiles?)

There is no mention of a right to own an automobile. That's why your car is registered with the state and not the federal government.

 

[nvxplorer]

And without arms, there is no militia, thus the people have the right to keep and bear arms

Doh! Why didn't I think of that?

Do you have a point to make, or do you consider stating the obvious to be an argument?

Actually, I offred examples where the right to bear arms has been infringed. Where was the ACLU?

No you haven't. You've offered examples of regulation. Put on your strict constructionist reading cap and look for the word "regulated" in the Second Amendment.

The militia cannot be regulated unless the citizentry is armed.

In other words, a militia requires that citizens be armed? Double doh!

There is no mention of a right to own an automobile. That's why your car is registered with the state and not the federal government.

And the point flutters directly over your head.

 

[nvxplorer]

A simple reading of the Federalist papers, particularly #46 would dispel the rumor that I am erroeously ignoring the militia portion of the amendment

You wrote Federalist #46?

 

[MachZer0]

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]ACLU POLICY [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
​

[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment to the Constitution ​

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there

can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." ​

[/FONT]​

A true leftist philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACLU push for confiscation of guns
​

 

[Nathan Poe]

A simple reading of the Federalist papers, particularly #46 would dispel the rumor that I am erroeously ignoring the militia portion of the amendment

Irrelevent.

All based on misinterpretations of the Constitution

Glad to hear you're in favor of obscentiy. Should make next season of Desperate Housewives real interesting.

Glad to hear you're in favor of libel. Should make reading the New York Times much more exciting.

Glad to hear you're in favor of death threats. Should make-- oh wait a minute, there's nothing redeeming about that...

What a strange, sick world we'd be living in under your interpretation of the Constitution...


No comment about the Third Amendment, Mach? Do you feel that the ACLU adequately defends that one as well?

 

[Nathan Poe]

A true leftist philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACLU push for confiscation of guns
[/left]

Final score: Bluster - 1, Facts - 0.

 

[nvxplorer]

A true leftist philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACLU push for confiscation of guns
[/LEFT]

The ACLJ promotes a true fascist philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see it push for the banning of all religion except for Robertsonism.

 

[JustOneWay]

A true leftist philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACLU push for confiscation of guns
[/left]

Why?

The ACLU official stance on guns is nuetrality. Why would they want to confiscate the guns?