Cynical Nation

I don't know Barry, I never found the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment at all inconsistent with the Left's worldview and that organization has been consistently Leftist, not Libertarian.

After all, they've also consistently supported race and gender based preferences and those violate both the equal protections clause of the Constitution and the equality of opportunity concept in American law.

Like many logically inconsistent Liberals, they don't seem to mind some intrusions into our privacy (for redistributive purposes, for health reasons, etc.), but vehemently oppose such intrusions when used to infiltrate &/or surveil terror organizations, use internet stings to catch pedophiles, etc.

The late Bill Kuntsler was at least honest about his intentions, as he once infamously said, "I USE the Constitution to destroy the Constitution.

Sadly, that has seemed to have been the tactic of far too many in the ACLU over the years.

Yeah, it's perfectly consistent for a leftist political organization, but not for a non-partisan defender of the Bill of Rights, which is what they claim to be (yeah, I know, I know....)

That's just is: The ACLU is NOT a "defender of the Bill of Rights" but pushing a partisan leftist agenda and hypocritically trying to disguise it as "rights advocacy".

And yes, the Court did say what was permissible in a general way (no one could easily give full details in one decision) that would be manifestly sufficient for a TRUE "rights" organization. The Court said it was just like the 1st or 4th Amendment protections.

Gee, that would be something a TRUE rights organization would want to see the Court protect with STRICT SCRUTINY.

Yes, that's what they CLAIM to be barry and if they were, they'd have a lot more support.

The Bill of Rights primarily set to LIMIT governmental action, that's not what either contemporary Leftist Liberalism, nor the ACLU espouses.

It also stressed INDIVUALISM, PRIVATE PROPERTY and defined "freedom" as Liberty which is full and complete personal responsibility/self-ownership, and NOT the license of "doing whatever we want, so long as we don't harm others."

Sadly those things also seem incompatible with contemporary Left-Liberalism.

"Gee, that would be something a TRUE rights organization would want to see the Court protect with STRICT SCRUTINY." (BNJ)


Yes, it would!

"Gee, that would be something a TRUE rights organization would want to see the Court protect with STRICT SCRUTINY." (BNJ)...Whoops! I meant HerbM

I've been an ACLU member for some time now, and I've always had to accept that the organization had a political bias that I didn't always agree with.

Barry,
I have also been an ACLU member for long time and a regular contributor financially to them. In contrast to you,I do not think they have any bias.
However, I do. I believe that the 2nd amendment is now inconsistent with civilization and should be repealed altogether. It was the right thing those days. But times have changed and the 2nd amendment can no longer stand in civilized societies. Wanna defend yourself? Support more investment for better LE. I know you disagree, but whether you want it or not, at some point the 2nd amendment will be repealed down the road. It simply makes no sense.

"Wanna defend yourself? Support more investment for better LE" (BW)


Self defense is vital for full self-ownership.Liberty.

I'll never believe that there are more Americans who believe that "freedom" means Doing whatever we each want, so long as we don't harm others," as opposed to how America's Founders defined it and if it could, somehow be shown that I'm wrong on that, I'd be among that passionate minority willing to impose our will on the complacent, uncaring majority.

You have to remember that ONLY 12% of America's Colonists supported the war for Independence from England. It's just that the Tory majority was too uncaring and complacent to stop the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, et al, from imposing their will on the vast majority who initially didn't support their vision.

Law enforcement is NOT there to stop crime.

If they were, then we could, as citizens, sue state, local and even the federal government when we're victimized by crime.

Fact is you CAN'T sue, because law enforcement is NOT set up, nor is capable of stop crimes before they occur.

Self defense is a sacred right and opposing that would make us all "slaves to the state."

You'd probably settle for that, but I'm better than that and I insist on being a "fre sovereign" and not a "citizen" or "subject."

Besides, under the morality that I accept, "my property is more valuable than the life of anyone who'd try and take it."

That's the essence of FREEDOM - self-ownership.

JMK,
You are unbelievable. It is hard to know whether you deliberately misrepresent the facts and lie (that would be the best case scenario) or you really believe (!) the bizzare things that you frequently write. Really. Sorry, but it is true.

I should clarify that my comment above is in the wrong place. It was meant in relationship to your bizzare last comment in another post. This one.

"I should clarify that my comment above is in the wrong place. It was meant in relationship to your bizzare last comment in another post." (BW)


Well, that's a relief!

Since you have no argument, nor even any ratioanl reason for defending your initial anti-self defense stance here, I'll presume that means you've come around on THIS point and cede that violent self-defense is a basic (inborn or "God-given") human right.

Opinions are fine BW, but ONLY opinions rooted in fact, have any validity.

Sure, there's an "opinion" that, "Violence solves nothing and only begets more violence."

Sounds nice and very non-violent, but it's NOT rooted in reality, nor facts, and thus it's demonstrably wrong.

In fact, violence is a very effective "problem solving tool." Individuals use it effectively, organizations, including governments, do too.

In fact, whether you realize it or not, you're really not arguing for any "end of violence," but merely a monopoly on violence on the part of one of the most histroically nefarious and untrustworthy organizations ever to exist - governments.

Governments use violence in policing, in jailing criminals (imprisoning an individual is a form of violence, just as surely as kidnapping them and depriving them of access to friends, family and freedom is) and in severe cases with Capital Punishment.

Governments also routinely use violence as a "negotiating tool" with other nations - "economic sanctions that deprive a nation of necessary supplies is VIOLENCE, so are wars.

I used to repossess cars. I did that for about twelve years.

What I found was that in such cases people rarely willingly surrender property, even "stolen property," like a car they aren't paying for. I also found that while words hardly ever convince someone to give up things they're, in effect, stealing (by not paying for them), a gun in the face, a kick in the balls or other such sordid methods yield wildly successful results.

The historical evidence of this fact is all around us! Hitler and Tojo weren't going to be talked or "negotiated" out of their quest for world domination, but a severe ass-kicking called WW II sure derailed those plans. Likewise neither Stalin, nor Mao was going to be talked out of THEIR quest for a Communist globe, but after a "Cold War" filled with numerous "Hot Battles" in Africa, South America and the Mideast, the Communists (the USSR and the Chicoms abroad, and the "Peace and Love" Hippie Movement here at home) were humiliated and defeated.

It stands to reason, that if governments can and do defend their borders, language and cultures by violence, then free individuals can certainly defend their own property and their own lives with violence whenever and wherever necessary.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/16/144137/459/664/552594

Remarkable. 10 republican congressmen voted for impeachment hearings against Bush. Now we are talking. These guys are real republicans who really care about their country.

The BEST thing that could happen to the GOP right now is the "Kooky Kucinich" impeachment Bill.

It'd serve the same purpose the Libertarian Convention does every year - parading the luntatic fringe of the LP before the nation on C-Span, insuring the LP remains marginalized.

Kucinich, Conyers, Waters and their ilk could very easily serve the same purpose for the Democratic Left.

That's probably why five Democrats abstained from voting - they didn't want the embarrassment of the freak show that is the far Left of this Party.

More on topic, I think this is yet another issue that illustrates the illogic of the Liberal position.

When a drunk driver plows into a crowd of people, killing some of them, we DON'T have anyone blaming the car. No one says, "If cars were smaller, fewer people would be killed," NO, we blame the DRIVER...the human who misused the inanimate object.

That is, as they say, is right and just and rational.

Guns are the same as cars - they are useful tools. A gun is a tool that can be used for self-protection, or for hunting and sport-shooting, just as a car can be used for transportation, or sport driving.

Only illogical dimwits support any kind of gun ban, and that's probably why none of them can ever make a rational argument in favor of their position.

Once again, that's the flaw of using eemotion, instead of logic.

When a drunk driver plows into a crowd of people, killing some of them, we DON'T have anyone blaming the car.

JMK,
In case you missed it, cars are not guns. They have different uses.

Wrong again BW, BOTH are (1) inanimate objects, and (2) useful, even necessary tools.

We don't blame cars when people misuse them, and only the logically impaired blame guns when people (a/k/a thugs) misuse those.

Certainly a homeowner shooting an intruder is a heroic act by a freedom-loving citizen, whereas a thug using a gun to try an expropriate money from decent people, is a cowardly thug.

No one would equate the two.

Now, I suppose it would be different IF, there were some way to make an argument like, "Self defense isn't an innate right, it's an anachronomism of an earlier simpler time."

The reason no one makes such an argument is that it can't be logically made.

I mean, without that fundamental right to self-defense, all people are reduced to mere "subjects," or "wards of the state," and I suppose it would follow that one kind of "ward of the state" (welfare recipients, for instance) are no different than any of the rest of us "wards of the state."

I'm sure even you can clearly see just how flawed and misanthropic such a nazistic argument is.

Hey, McCain looks better and better. He now discovered a new Iraq-Pakistan border. I think at this point it is only fair to wonder whether McCain is (really) demented. I really think he is losing it. Kind of sad to watch a man at his age to embarrass himself like that.

Isn't that always THE WAY?

A candidate's flubs mean nothing when they're "our candidates," flubs, but they're "proofs of incompetency" on the part of the "other guy's candidate."

Obama can talk of 57 states and how Americans "need to learn Spanish" and Obama-fans think nothing of it, while McCain can talk of "not knowing anything about the economy" and talking of non-existent borders and those mean nothing to his.

There's an irony in all this somewhere, like in Bush embracing many of the failed Keynesian policies (bank bailouts, mortgage bailouts and tighter regulation of the financial markets) that Liberals have long been famous for endorsing, and Liberals still revile him, despite this new, and to Conservatives, all too distressing Keynesian streak, just as some Conservatives have embraced these ideals under the TBTF theory.

Me? While I still like Bush's "plain-talking" style, I DON'T like at all any of these anti-Supply Side policies (the "stimulus check" scam, the mortgage bailouts, etc.), any more than I liked his NCBA overspending, his prescription drug boondoggle, or the Shamnesty Bill he supported and TWICE tried to push on, AGAINST the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

I guess it goes to the teamsports mentality of so many political junkies.

I like to believe I'm above that, but that's almost certainly a matter of my being a Conservative Democrat and thus not being all that comfortable with either major Party.