ACLU Puts Principle Ahead of Politics

[Comprehend]

The right to privacy is in the Constitution. It is necessarily implied through the preservation of other rights that depend upon it according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, I understand that is the current interpretation. I was not specific enough in my statement, the right to privacy is not explicity found in the constitution whereas the 2nd amendment is.

 

[Comprehend]

Of course they do... there have been no laws concerning the states having a militia. None, nada, squat. That's the point of the amendment: not personal gun rights.

maybe you missed where I pointed out that there is a significant circuit court split on this issue.

There are two main interpretations of the 2nd amendment along with a few nuances that won't matter for this discussion. First is that the right is a collective right of the states that allows for the state and federal government to regulate as little or as much (even up to a total ban) as it likes. The second view is that there is an individual right to bear arms which would mean that the state and federal govt. do not have the ability to regulate it.

The first view comes down on the side of government regulation, restriction and the ability to curtail individual liberty.

The second view comes down on the side of the individual and increases individual liberty.

The civil liberty interpretation would obviously be to support the second view which by the way has been gaining more and more acceptance. You are blinded by your own personal bias.

For a civil liberty union to side with government regulation and against civil liberty shows that the ACLU does not uniformly support civil liberty regardless of politics as you argued.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The civil liberty interpretation would obviously be to support the second view which by the way has been gaining more and more acceptance. You are blinded by your own personal bias.

For a civil liberty union to side with government regulation and against civil liberty shows that the ACLU does not uniformly support civil liberty regardless of politics as you argued.

They are supporting my civil liberties by NOT having irresponsible people point assault weapons in my direction. I believe their explanation to be sufficient.

 

[Comprehend]

They are supporting my civil liberties by NOT having irresponsible people point assault weapons in my direction. I believe their explanation to be sufficient.

LOL.

Thanks for proving my point.

you libs are all for civil liberties when they line up with your politics but are quick to goose step when it serves your interests...

You just shot yourself in the foot. :foot:


game over.

 

[doppelganger]

Yes, I understand that is the current interpretation. I was not specific enough in my statement, the right to privacy is not explicity found in the constitution whereas the 2nd amendment is.

The point being? The right to privacy underlies many of the rights protected in the Constitution. It is more valuable than several of the rights expressly protected because it makes other protections meaningful.

There are a great many rights not expressly in the Constitution, but that are important nonetheless. Miranda rights, for example. And all the details of what constitutes Due Process of Law and Equal Protection. Those are undefined phrases in the Constitution. You have to look to the interpretive caselaw to garner the meaning.

 

[doppelganger]

LOL.

Thanks for proving my point.

you libs are all for civil liberties when they line up with your politics but are quick to goose step when it serves your interests...

You just shot yourself in the foot. :foot:


game over.

Should I be allowed to purchase and own a hydrogen bomb?

 

[Comprehend]

The point being? The right to privacy underlies many of the rights protected in the Constitution. It is more valuable than several of the rights expressly protected because it makes other protections meaningful.

There are a great many rights not expressly in the Constitution, but that are important nonetheless. Miranda rights, for example. And all the details of what constitutes Due Process of Law and Equal Protection. Those are undefined phrases in the Constitution. You have to look to the interpretive caselaw to garner the meaning.

the point is simply that the 2nd amendment is ignored by the ACLU.

 

[doppelganger]

the point is simply that the 2nd amendment is ignored by the ACLU.

No it isn't. I showed you their position on it. Your personal interpretation is different from theirs, that's all.

Should I be allowed to purchase and own my own personal hydrogen bomb?

 

[Comprehend]

Should I be allowed to purchase and own a hydrogen bomb?

Pete claimed "The ACLU will try to stop ANY infringement of our civil liberties".

and you claimed "it (the ACLU) plugs right ahead protecting the civil rights of all people anyway".

I think I have adequately demonstrated that the ACLU does not plug right ahead protecting the civil rights of gun owners and in fact actively works to deny any civil right that may be associated with the 2nd amendment almost uniformly.


You have yet to demonstrate that the ACLU works to protect 2nd Amendment civil rights. Instead you have sought to excuse it from doing so.

If as you claim, the ACLU "plugs right ahead protecting the civil rights of all people anyway." would you mind giving some examples of when the ACLU comes down in support of 2nd amendment gun ownership civil rights?

If not, would you retract your claim?

 

[Scuba Pete]

LOL.

Thanks for proving my point.

you libs are all for civil liberties when they line up with your politics but are quick to goose step when it serves your interests...

You just shot yourself in the foot. :foot:


game over.

Such a typical Republican. Claiming victory while the war is still going on. You and Shrub are two peas in a pod! So, how have your gun toting rights been abridged? What? You can't buy automatics anymore. Go cry me a river.

 

[Comprehend]

No it isn't. I showed you their position on it. Your personal interpretation is different from theirs, that's all.

Should I be allowed to purchase and own my own personal hydrogen bomb?

You are right, it isn't ignored. The ACLU actively fights against the civil liberties of gun owners. My mistake.

obviously you should not own a hydrogen bomb just like you cannot yell fire in a theatre. That is a lame distraction of an argument. The ACLU comes down on the side of individual civil liberties with regard to freedom of speech 99% of the time, would you disagree? It also comes down against 2nd amendment individual liberties 99% of the time. Which of course makes your claims false.

 

[doppelganger]

It's a difference of interpretation between you and they. They protect every civil right. Just not always the way YOU want them to.

Now, for the third time, this is a really simple question:

DO I HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE AND OWN MY OWN PERSONAL HYDROGEN BOMB?

 

[Comprehend]

Such a typical Republican. Claiming victory while the war is still going on. You and Shrub are two peas in a pod! So, how have your gun toting rights been abridged? What? You can't buy automatics anymore. Go cry me a river.

You have made this dumb mistake before and it seems you haven't learned from it, I am not a republican nor am I a Bush supporter. Your petty attacks against Bush are not only childish and irrelevant to this debate but it exposes your desperate debating position.

Why don't you try something on topic instead of lashing out in your normal partisan liberal fashion? :sad4:

 

[Scuba Pete]

It also comes down against 2nd amendment individual liberties 99% of the time.

Where did they do this? Where did they lobby for tighter gun control?

 

[Comprehend]

It's a difference of interpretation between you and they. They protect every civil right. Just not always the way YOU want them to.

nope, it isn't.

The difference is in every other situation they come down on the side of INDIVIDUAL CIVIL LIBERTY. WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THEY COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION AND AGAINST INDIVIDUAL CIVIL LIBERTY.

It has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

Now, for the third time, this is a really simple question:

DO I HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE AND OWN MY OWN PERSONAL HYDROGEN BOMB?

I have already answered and it is a lame distration.

 

[doppelganger]

The ACLU actively fights against the civil liberties of gun owners.

Examples please.

obviously you should not own a hydrogen bomb just like you cannot yell fire in a theatre.

Why not? The 2nd Amendment guarantees me the personal right to keep and bear arms. Nuclear weapons are "arms." That's why they called the Cold War an "Arms Race."

Come on, support my Constitutional right to bear arms, Comprehend. What kind of fascism is this that you're bringing to the table? :sarcastic

 

[Comprehend]

Examples please.

Why not? The 2nd Amendment guarantees me the personal right to keep and bear arms. Nuclear weapons are "arms." That's why they called the Cold War an "Arms Race."

Come on, support my Constitutional right to bear arms, Comprehend. What kind of fascism is this that you're bringing to the table? :sarcastic

Is that honestly all you have?


:sleep:


I consider my job done here.

 

[doppelganger]

nope, it isn't.

The difference is in every other situation they come down on the side of INDIVIDUAL CIVIL LIBERTY. WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THEY COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION AND AGAINST INDIVIDUAL CIVIL LIBERTY.

It has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

Where has the ACLU actively lobbied for restrictions on gun ownership or filed briefs opposing arguments of gun owners under the 2nd amendment?

 

[doppelganger]

I consider my job done here.

I agree. You've successfully flushed your credibility down the toilet.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Where has the ACLU actively lobbied for restrictions on gun ownership or filed briefs opposing arguments of gun owners under the 2nd amendment?

He can't answer you. He will continue to do what he accuses everyone else of doing: smearing anyone who does not agree with him!