Well, if the ACLU is against it, I am for it! We all know they serve no purpose
but to take away our rights and religious freedoms!
token gesture by the ACLU to say "we aren't ALWAYS
anti-American"they do it every now and again, but since
harry's bhill won't pass, they know they don't have to put any
real energy or effort into their "objections"
A national registration system for firearms as a public safety measure versus
the right to privacy is not a black and white issue. The history of American
distrust of a national government has been embedded as part of its founding.
Paradoxically, Republicans have contributed to this paranoia by their past
support of tougher law enforcement, policing policy that can intrude upon the
rights of innocent citizens, while Democrats have supported stronger federal
oversight on the presumption that it protects the rights of minorities and less
powerful. Now with police support for background checks, once a Republican
preference, we now find that conservative Republicans are also championing
individual and privacy right issues that have long been the domain of the
liberal Democratic party. The lines of political party purity have become
@lostIt just can't be true that you and the ACLU might actually agree
spring street,you can rest easy, I don't think the aclu really
beleives this. As I said, I think this is just a token gesture on their part.
They won't push very hard, if at all. If they actually got involved in
litigation, I'm sure it would just be to sabotage the opposition to
@lost in DCAs someone who pays more attention to the ACLU and isn't
busy demonizing it all the time as haters of freedom, I am not surprised one bit
by them taking this position and expected they would. This is not a token
gesture on their part. Really, they're more libertarian than liberal.
@atl: "more libertarian" can be parsed in many ways. As my former
Senator brother used to say, "if the ACLU, the UEA or Tom Barberi opposes
me, I know I am on the right course"@editor: the following"The first concern is the bill treats records for unlicensed gun sales
differently than purchases made through unlicensed sellers."should
probably say"...through licensed sellers."As with any
legislation, there should be very clear objective(s), very clearly stated
objective measurement(s) for meeting the stated objective(s), and a very clear
sunset (removal of the legislation as law) if the objective(s) are not met.A very high percentage of all of this knee-jerk "feel good" gun
CONTROL legislation does not in any way serve to reduce crime. Unlawful people
are NOT going to suddenly become law-abiding citizens just because of
FoxNews, Jan.2004:""For many people, it may seem odd that
the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida
Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement."But we
have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we
will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for
everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view,"
Simon said.The ACLU contends that state law enforcement officers violated
Limbaugh's privacy rights by taking possession of his medical records as
part of their criminal investigation into the commentator's alleged
"doctor-shopping" to feed his prescription-drug addiction."In 1989 the Santa Barbara chapter of the ACLU defended Sean Hannity, and won,
when he was fired from a broadcasting job.
I'm guessing Heck just froze over. I'm acutually agreeing with the
ACLU. What an apparent moment of clarity they are having.
Background checks on citizens: yes. It will keep us safe. Background
checks on alleged illegal immigrants: now that's unfair. Why do
I feel that illegal immigrants get the white-glove treatment. Free fake
identity. Free health care. No background checks. The bigger the
government the more constituents to please, the more backs to scratch, the more
position appointment paybacks, the more corruption, etc, etc, etc.
George Washington warned against the stupidity of having permanent alliances and
permanent enemies saying it would lead one to make poorly informed decisions
based on feelings and not current facts.
Never in my life did I expect to see the ACLU weigh in on gun legislation
outside of the anti gun corner. I've often wondered where they, the great
defenders of the constitution were when it came to the second amendment. As an
organization for legal rights, can they pick and chose their battles, or should
they defend every conflict of constitutional legality equally? I'm all for
the ACLU even though I don't agree with them most of the time, but knowing
they are there, the "watch dog of constitutional rights" so to speak,
gives me comfort. I would like to see them defend the 2nd amendment rights of
U.S. citizens as fervently as they do the constitution as a whole. The signers
of the constitution must have thought that the rights of the people to own
firearms is important because its number 2 on the list, right after our freedom
of speech which we exercise every day both good and bad. ACLU, today you ROCK!
W.BrentExactly right. Many people don't have the intellectual
curosity nor the love of freedom to even seek this farewell speech from Geroge
Washington out and READ IT. It condemns lengthy foreign alliances and going to
war in foreign countries. I think we should only have a war if the enemy is on
our own land. Anything else is unjustifiable.
Harry Reid is even an embarrassment to all other politicians. Harry is a
non-producer of anything useful for the American people. He is 100% politician
and 0% patriot/statesman.
does having a knife fork and a spoon make me fat.
atl134if the aclu is libertarian, the pope is a haitian voodoo priestess.
@atl @KalindraInstead of making fun of the conservatives for their
past disagreements with the ACLU, maybe y'all should approach this
differently. It looks like y'all are really missing the point (or choosing
to ignore it).If the ACLU and the gun-toting conservatives agree
that what the Feds are suggesting as legislation is bad policy that infringes on
the citizens' rights...maybe it really is all that bad. (And by
"maybe" I mean "yes it certainly is.") Will you two
have the same smirks on your face when the Feds come after the Constitutional
rights you hold dear? I think not...but if your tune doesn't change, *I
will* at that point.
@lostI guess you will believe what ever consperecy will help you sleep
I trust the NRA - I don't trust Harry Reid.
@lost in DC So this very appriviated list that could go for pages is all
things you appose? The ACLU of West Virginia backed an LDS student who
lost his state-funded merit-based scholarship because he left college to serve a
two-year church mission.THE ACLU of Utah (1999) supports the rights of LDS
youth to participate in missionary week in at their schools. In 2011 the
ACLU of Texas, Nebraska and Colorado opposed school district’s in their
states policies prohibiting students from visibly wearing rosaries, crosses, and
other articles of faith.The ACLU of New Jersey (2010) submitted an amicus
brief in support of a public school student’s right to express her
religious beliefs about abortion by wearing an armband with the word
“LIFE” on it.The ACLU of California (1989) defends Sean
Hannity when Hannity was fired from his job as a radio DJ for expressing views
that the station felt where “homophobic”
"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his
hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights." --American author H. L.
sorry abbreviated not appriviated
@ TolstoyInteresting the examples you gave which you say could go on
for pages, but I'd be willing to bet that the pages would still number ten
to one in favor of liberal causes. You know the old saying about the broken
clock is still right twice a day.
@happy2bhereDid you ever stop to think there maybe another reason beyond
simple bias why it is that the ACLU has to defend "liberal" causes more
Tea Party conservatives think the ACLU is "liberal" because often it is
"conservative" legislation that is violating someone's
Constitutional rights. These so-called conservatives often fail to realize that
when "liberal" government action violates civil liberties, the ACLU is
right in there as well. Am I crazy about the fact that the ACLU has a problem
with this legislation? No. But I respect that the ACLU's only goal is
trying to make sure that Constitutional rights are protected.
@ spring streetIn answer to your question. YES. I have stopped to
think about it, and no there is no other reason than the ACLU is liberally
biased. If they weren't, there would be no reason for the Alliance Defense
@mg ScottOf course there could be no reason, like say to push
unconstitutional laws, policies or behaviors.