RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read

RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/21/2007 11:01:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Ghita, yes, I think that there's some truth to some people seeing only what they want in the Constitution. For instance, they're "real big" on the First Amendment in places like Boston, NYC, & San Francisco but in those places it's like there is no Second Amendment in the Constitution! They just skip right to the third. Not for noth`n,Nevada has pretty liberal gun laws.If I`m correct,anyone can carry a gun,if it`s not concealed.I`ve been to NV(and AZ),and seen regular folks w/ holstered pistols,in public,and longs guns in the gun rack.It`s normal and common.How ever,you gotta check your gun at the door(figuratively) when you enter Las Vegas.There`s a reason why cities choose to limit firearms.States(and by default,cities),are allowed to control firearms as they see fit,under the constitution. Even in the old west,a sheriff could dis-arm people as they entered their town.

luckydog1 -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/21/2007 1:00:09 PM)
Owner, I am still not clear, why do you support Senator Luatenbergs bill? You are making a big noise over percieved loss of rights, but Luatenberg has been anti 2nd amendmant long before 911. Being inconvienced/denied at the airport sucks, but you have no constitutional right to get on a plane, or did I miss that amendmant? Why do you support limiting our 2nd amendmant rights?

luckydog1 -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/21/2007 1:02:54 PM)
Owner that is correct, states and cities can regulate guns any dang way they want, and if you dont like NYC's gun laws, don't live there. But this is just another in a string of attempts to limit the gun laws of other states and federal rights of citizens . Why do you support it?

popeye1250 -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/21/2007 1:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati For the record, Owner, I call Ron Pauls number at least weekly to see what the new message is...lol... and popeye...I wanted to say that I LOVE your signature line...too funny Ghita, well thankyou, I have a kind of "off-beat" sense of humor. And I think Pulp is right! This P.O.S. just won't pass Constitutional muster! If the A.C.L.U. has any balls left they'll sue against this crap. That's how BAD this thing is! Anyone who voted for it should be "Jap-Slapped!"

GhitaAmati -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/21/2007 1:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Owner, I am still not clear, why do you support Senator Luatenbergs bill? You are making a big noise over percieved loss of rights, but Luatenberg has been anti 2nd amendmant long before 911. Being inconvienced/denied at the airport sucks, but you have no constitutional right to get on a plane, or did I miss that amendmant? Why do you support limiting our 2nd amendmant rights? I get the sense that Owner just likes to stir shit, same as I do...Ive seen him contradict himself on several threads just to get conversation flowing. And I honestly see that as a good thing sometimes....getting people to think...honestly think..about whats going on is the only way anything will ever get done around here. Unfortunantly, all too often we sit here discussing things like this with the same group of people who allready knows whats going on...its the folks out there who dont have a clue (and there are alot of them) that really need to get drug into these topics.... And popeye...what time is it...really?

Pulpsmack -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/21/2007 4:10:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 There`s a reason why cities choose to limit firearms.States(and by default,cities),are allowed to control firearms as they see fit,under the constitution. Even in the old west,a sheriff could dis-arm people as they entered their town. A sheriff "could" (and did) disarm people in New Orleans by knocking on the door and demanding a surrender of all weapons as per the directive of the Mayor. That hardly makes it "legal", and even if it is considered legal, that doesn't always make it constitutional. Even if it is "constitutional" today, the right set of eyes on the SCOTUS tomorrow might have an entirely different interpretation... one of the pitfalls of this interpretive nonsense. As for your joking about how popular the quartering act was, it wasn't very funny 2 years ago when LEO/MIL broke into a locked church, used it as sleeping quarters and simply left a note behind. What's absurd and unpopular today may be excruciatingly relevant tomorrow. There was Bill of Rights drafted for a reason, and While they were not ranked explicitly by importance, one cannot help but see the organization with the first 5.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/21/2007 6:18:55 PM)
Are we back to the "God damn it, they should allow firearms on airplanes too" argument? I thought we already covered that one. It was absurd enough the first time. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Being inconvienced/denied at the airport sucks, but you have no constitutional right to get on a plane, or did I miss that amendmant? Why do you support limiting our 2nd amendmant rights?

Real0ne -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/21/2007 8:09:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati What shocks me the most, is the number of people who have no idea what types of legislation are being talked about currently, and could care less. What shocks me most is that people have no clue that their government does not work for them. Especially the self professed "really" intelligent ones who consider anything but the status quo inane. Of course there are others who watch this plot thicken and continue to thicken as time goes on. The perps cant cover their tracks fast enough but i have to say they are doing a pretty good job of slight of hand. CIA Exec. Director Managed Firm That Handled "Put" Options on UAL by Michael C. Ruppert CIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR "BUZZY" KRONGARD MANAGED FIRM THAT HANDLED "PUT" OPTIONS ON UAL FTW, October 9, 2001: Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money. Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks. http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/163143.html ---------------------------------- SEC SECRET PROBE OF STOCK DEALINGS BEFORE 9/11 Between August 26 and September 11, 2001, a group of speculators, identified by the American Securities and Exchange Commission as Israeli citizens, sold "short" a list of 38 stocks that could reasonably be expected to fall in value as a result of the pending attacks. These speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and Frankfurt, Germany, stock exchanges and their profits were specifically stated to be "in the millions of dollars." snip The Times said market regulators in Germany, Japan and the US all had received information concerning the short selling of insurance, airlines and arms companies stock, all of which fell sharply in the wake of the attacks. City of London broker and analyst Richard Crossley noted that someone sold shares in unusually large quantities beginning three weeks before the assault on the WTC and Pentagon. He said he took this as evidence that someone had insider foreknowledge of the attacks. "What is more awful than he should aim a stiletto blow at the heart of Western financial markets?" he added. "But to profit from it? Words fail me." The US Government also admitted it was investigating short selling, which evinced a compellingly strong foreknowledge of the coming Arab attack. There was unusually heavy trading in airline and insurance stocks several days before Sept.11, which essentially bet on a drop in the worth of the stocks. snip Government investigators have maintained a diplomatic silence about a Department of Justice (DOJ) probe of possible profiteering by interested parties with advance knowledge of the attack. ------------------------------------------- CIA Official Quits; FBI Probes Role in Defense Contracts The FBI is investigating whether a top-ranking CIA official who announced his resignation yesterday steered contracts to a boyhood friend at the center of a congressional bribery scandal, law enforcement officials said. The investigation of CIA Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo follows an ongoing investigation by the agency's inspector general, which is examining whether Foggo was involved in CIA contracts awarded to a firm owned by San Diego defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes. In a brief e-mail to CIA --------------------------------------------- WHAT DID THE GOVERNMENT KNOW AND WHEN DID IT KNOW IT? The task was simple, deny the evidence, cover-up the embarrassing arrest of two Israelis with an explosives-tainted truck, and give the media a reason to return to the mantra of "all terror is caused by Muslims". But what started as a simply attempt to spin the news away from the Israelis arrested in Washington State has backfired on the Bush administration in a big way. In conducting the classic "limited hangout" of admitting to foreknowledge of the attacks of 9-11 in order to reassert the link to Osama bin Laden, Bush has handed opponents of his administration and opponents of World War the most damning proof yet that the reality of 9-11 is not what the US Government and media have been telling the American people it is. The arrested Israelis posed a problem. History records in the Lavon Affair that Israelis willingly use bombs and lay false trails to Arabs for political gain. And it wasn't too long ago that JDL Chairman Irv Rubin was arrested for plotting to blow up a US Congressman who refused to toe the Israel party line. Then there were the two Mossad agents arrested inside the Mexican Congress with guns and explosives shortly after 9-11. As the battered World Trade Towers collapsed, the very first suspects arrested, caught cheering as the towers fell, were Israelis, later identified as Mossad agents. The arrested spies worked for Urban Moving Systems, whose Israeli owner promptly fled the nation. Still other espionage suspects posed as art students trying to get into federal buildings, while others held cover jobs in mall kiosks selling "Zoom Copters", kiosks that sat empty when their entire staffs were thrown into jail on suspicion of espionage. All told, the Israeli spy ring, which had been partly uncovered prior to 9-11, was the largest spy ring ever uncovered in the United States. In California, the ADL was also convicted of running a massive spy operation on American citizens. Coupled with the spies themselves was the discovery of a massive phone tapping operation carried out by Comverse Infosys (yet another Israeli company) contracted to place phone tapping equipment on the US phone system to aid US law enforcement authorities. However, those same authorities began to suspect that Israelis were using that very same system to listen in on the phone calls of Americans when high profile drug investigations into Ecstasy rings (run by the Israeli organized crime) were derailed using information only obtainable from police phone calls. In the Kenneth Starr report, it is reported that Bill Clinton was aware that an unnamed foreign power had made recordings of his phone sex sessions with Monica Lewinsky. In the end, three Israeli companies with deep penetration of the American communications infrastructure were implicated in the phone and internet tapping scandal. One of these companies, Odigo, had an office near the World Trade Towers, and received a two hour advance warning of the impending attack. Two hours means the warning was sent before the planes that eventually crashed into the World Trade Towers had even left the ground on their http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/govknow.html

thornhappy -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/22/2007 4:17:05 PM)
Hi RealOne-- You snagged an urban legend there.... see www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati What shocks me the most, is the number of people who have no idea what types of legislation are being talked about currently, and could care less. What shocks me most is that people have no clue that their government does not work for them. Especially the self professed "really" intelligent ones who consider anything but the status quo inane. Of course there are others who watch this plot thicken and continue to thicken as time goes on. The perps cant cover their tracks fast enough but i have to say they are doing a pretty good job of slight of hand. CIA Exec. Director Managed Firm That Handled "Put" Options on UAL by Michael C. Ruppert (clipped by thornhappy for brevity)

Owner59 -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/22/2007 8:04:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Bearlee quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ... I am not suggesting that we should all hold hands and walk down the beach in the moonlight but we do need to stand shoulder to shoulder in our opposition to this piece of legislation. I knew there was a reason I like this guy so much. Good work, Thompson! Bravo!!! Beverly I`m against this also. Just wonder why the right(wing) hasn`t stepped up to the plate before.I am aware the AG Ashcroft, refused to use gun purchase lists in cross referencing w/ suspected terrorist lists,just after 9/11.I recall it was pressure from the NRA,that kept the AG from seeing if any suspects bought any guns legally.Other than that,I haven`t seen hide nor hair of the right,in defending any other hard-fought rights.Maybe someone could give an example of the republicans actively protecting our Constitutional rights.I can`t think of any,sense 9/11.I`ve only seen a steady erosion of those rights,so far. Can I ask, people,why is it when the flood reaches your doorstep,that you finally do something?When ya`ll supported the patriot act,and demeaned those who questioned it,or said "hey,let`s think about this and what it really means",didn`t you consider that your favorite right, would/could/might also be threatened ?.So far,anyone who`s wanted to change or challenge parts of the act, have been vilified and libeled. Does it take the eroding of your own favorite part of the Constitution,to finally act?We don`t have to pick and choose(and shouldn`t).We can have them all. Will ya`ll only work on this,and not on restoring the other protections and rights guaranteed under our Constitution,that have been under attack by bush?Will you disappear when(if) this law is defeated and carry on as before? I fear the answer is, yes.Still,I`ll oppose this(Lautenbrrg is my Senator) with you,and ask that all of you consider supporting democrats in restoring "all" of our constitutional rights and protections.As Dr. Ron Paul recenty said,"you don`t have to give up your liberty,in order to be safe".I`m as liberal as they come,but I like this republican,Ron Paul.He`s no neo-con(new conservative). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJbx5apuJHQ I agree with 99 and 44/100 percent with every thing this man says,in this interview w/ Colbert.If he were to win his party`s nomonation,I`d support him 110% and vote republican.Who thinks this guy has a chance?Be honest. BTW,I`ve been in the audiance(at The Colbert Report) three times.It`s a blast,and free.If you`re coming to NYC,try to make being in a TV show audiance,part of your fun.Click around the site for tickets. http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml Peace LuckyDog: "Owner, I am still not clear, why do you support Senator Luatenbergs bill? You are making a big noise over percieved loss of rights, but Luatenberg has been anti 2nd amendmant long before 911. Being inconvienced/denied at the airport sucks, but you have no constitutional right to get on a plane, or did I miss that amendmant? Why do you support limiting our 2nd amendmant rights? " ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Notice that I said that I was against this bill. Doesn`t mean I support the NRA wackos, like Wayne LaPierre. After his "jackbooted thugs" comment,I knew he was the opposite of responsible. The NRA is led by nuts.I knew when the NRA kept him on,after the jackbooted thugs comment,that the NRA didn`t represent me.There`s plenty of level headed groups,who support the middle ground.I don` buy all the scare tactics and BS stories peddled by the NRA. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa031400b.htm Just so everyone knows,I have no allegiance to a party or wing (left or right).I don`t get my talking points from Carl Rove or Michael Moore.I get my talking points from the Constitution of the United States.That`s what makes our nation what it is,not the people,(they`re everywhere!)not the lands,everyone has land.It`s that special document(our constitution),the most liberal document ever written,that makes our country special, and even possible. If I`ve contriticted myself,let me know and I`ll attempt to sort it out.I don`t intentionally contridict myself. It may seem that way,when you stick to the constitution,and not the republican party or the NRA,or any group, for that matter. One reason why the right-wing hates the ACLU so much,is that the ACLU fights tooth and nail to defend and support the constitution.It just so happens,that the right-wing`s political agenda,and the US constitution, don`t match.The only Amendment the right is interested in,is the 2nd.IMO bush and the present bunch of republicans(accept Dr Ron Paul ) ,is an example of that. BTW,I would like to see the ACLU fight against this bill. It`s very possible.They have joined with the right(over the years) on quite a few issues. The only reason people call the ACLU a left-wing outfit(liberal,lefty,socialists,communists,radicals,tree huggers),is because the right-wing gets their asses kicked,often, by the ACLU.So to them,the ACLU "seems" left-wing.The right-wingers are sore losers,so instead of debating the issues,they name-call.The ACLU just follows the constitution,and lets the chips fall where they may.They just happen to fall against the right`s wishes,more often then they can bare. Peace

mnottertail -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/22/2007 8:09:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Are we back to the "God damn it, they should allow firearms on airplanes too" argument? I thought we already covered that one. It was absurd enough the first time. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Being inconvienced/denied at the airport sucks, but you have no constitutional right to get on a plane, or did I miss that amendmant? Why do you support limiting our 2nd amendmant rights? well, I bet that if I was carrying one and everybody knew it was me, they would sit very pretty throughout the flight, and wouldn't jack them big fuckin Dan Blocker fuckin saddlebags in over my head in first class when I am trying to get a drink. Cause there are repercussions.

popeye1250 -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/22/2007 10:16:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Owner, I am still not clear, why do you support Senator Luatenbergs bill? You are making a big noise over percieved loss of rights, but Luatenberg has been anti 2nd amendmant long before 911. Being inconvienced/denied at the airport sucks, but you have no constitutional right to get on a plane, or did I miss that amendmant? Why do you support limiting our 2nd amendmant rights? I get the sense that Owner just likes to stir shit, same as I do...Ive seen him contradict himself on several threads just to get conversation flowing. And I honestly see that as a good thing sometimes....getting people to think...honestly think..about whats going on is the only way anything will ever get done around here. Unfortunantly, all too often we sit here discussing things like this with the same group of people who allready knows whats going on...its the folks out there who dont have a clue (and there are alot of them) that really need to get drug into these topics.... And popeye...what time is it...really? Ghita, what time is it? Why it's time to put "Owner59" on Block like I did a few weeks ago.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/23/2007 8:44:54 AM)
quote: Original: Owner 59 Notice that I said that I was against this bill. Doesn`t mean I support the NRA wackos, like Wayne LaPierre. After his "jackbooted thugs" comment,I knew he was the opposite of responsible. The NRA is led by nuts.I knew when the NRA kept him on,after the jackbooted thugs comment,that the NRA didn`t represent me.There`s plenty of level headed groups,who support the middle ground.I don` buy all the scare tactics and BS stories peddled by the NRA. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa031400b.htm Just so everyone knows,I have no allegiance to a party or wing (left or right).I don`t get my talking points from Carl Rove or Michael Moore.I get my talking points from the Constitution of the United States.That`s what makes our nation what it is,not the people,(they`re everywhere!)not the lands,everyone has land.It`s that special document(our constitution),the most liberal document ever written,that makes our country special, and even possible. You miss the obvious. When you are a fledgling you start out as a moderate, a fence sitter. I remember a time in my life when I was stupid enough to dare ask "who really needs an assault rifle?" Thanks to the idiots in congress (who lost their jobs over this, and Klinton, The Assault weapons Ban of 1994 was going to pass, and I figured, whether I really want/need one or not it's "now or never" and I took the plunge. Then I began to actually see what a great hobby it was and how useful such a "hobby" is when it comes to preparation and defense (which ended up saving my life later). And now we get to the point... NRA is a bunch of whackos? Maybe so. After all, Who fights tooth and nail over passing a law requiring child safety locks to accompany weapons, or any such legislation that looks completely benign? Look at the other side. The Brady Center for lies and deceit is twice as radical and "insane" as the NRA zealots. They have the opposite agenda and use flat out myths and lies to promote their campaign of "responsible gun ownership" which is a transparent agenda of disarmament in the US of all LAW-ABIDING citizens. These people Spread lies that .50 cal rifles can take airplanes down with ease, that Assault Weapons have widespread use in violent crimes in the hands of gangs and terrorists, etc (and the numbers DON'T back anything they say). They push for "common sense gun laws", and "compromise" but it's all bullshit. When a gun law makes ZERO sense that is up for passage, they STILL push for it. When the NRA begrudgingly concedes some "baby lock" feel-good legislation, what the fuck do the Brady's "compromise"? They have never conceded an issue or backed down or agreed that any stupid law on the books that never worked didn't work. They get some tiny little measure in, then go for the next tiny (or huge) measure of control and regulation. So, while the NRA seems too extreme or unsavory to represent "you", the common sense moderate, just remember who they are fighting, and what tactics this adversary resorts to. If and when you can funish links to "moderate" Pro-2nd groups that get the job done and represent the community in a more tasteful way, I am sure we will all be happy to take a look at them. quote: One reason why the right-wing hates the ACLU so much,is that the ACLU fights tooth and nail to defend and support the constitution.It just so happens,that the right-wing`s political agenda,and the US constitution, don`t match.The only Amendment the right is interested in,is the 2nd.IMO This is complete and total bullshit. You should hear some of the law enforcement bashing (some of it too extreme in my opinion) that goes on lots of these pro gun, die hard Republican sites regarding traffic stops, the 4th Amendment and the 5th. This is just your skewed perception that you want to believe. You claim "I have no political affiliation" (neither lefty or righty). Every time I hear that little gem or "I'm really a moderate" I know the next words out of the person's mouth is an apology for the (mis)deeds of Party X, or a scathing attack on party Y, and that person is monitored closely enough it becomes apparent that they are in fact philosophically the equivalent of a party X or Y member. You present this skewed from the left perception that righties are nothing but advocates of "the man" exploiting the little guy (Constitution and all) to get the big SUV and a few guns to ensure they remain the "haves", and they would scrap the Constitution to ensure that anything that is darker than light tan is regulated by the criminal system. They claim they believe in freedom but have zero thought for individual rights, human rights, and while they talk a good game about legal freedoms it is merely doublespeak for their freedom to have corporate slavery on their big business manors. Oddly enough, those coming from the opposite end of the spectrum see the lefties as deceitful exploitationists who wish to create a terminally obese government with social programs to control the pocketbooks of the haves and the destiny of the have nots. That they maximize racial issues and exploit the subject because keeping minorities down is necessary for them to have support (hence they tacitly support it so they can overtly denounce it). They believe in human rights to the point the Constitution is meaningless, and an AIDS ridden boatload of Foreign terrorists deserves more rights than a taxpaying American citizen. They want to live the full luxurious American capitalistic lifestyle, but they want to eat their cake too by denouncing America for the necessary evils it commits to make such a lifestyle. I missed a few bucketfuls on either side, but the end result is that both perspectives are full of shit, albeit with a substantial core of truth within. But you might as well equate the Rs and the Ds with NRA and the Brady Bunch: When it comes to defending an issue or pushing an agenda you have to act like Howard Dean on the campaign trail, because the other side does the exact same thing. quote: BTW,I would like to see the ACLU fight against this bill. It`s very possible.They have joined with the right(over the years) on quite a few issues. The ACLU picking up the standard and actually living up their name (instead of pushing their pet issues) is as likely as the NAACP demanding that the Klan allow minorities within its ranks. quote: The only reason people call the ACLU a left-wing outfit(liberal,lefty,socialists,communists,radicals,tree huggers),is because the right-wing gets their asses kicked,often, by the ACLU. The reason why the right wingers "get their ass kicked" so often by the ACLU is because that is the only side the ACLU choses to attack. What lawyers do you think the ACLU hires? The Right-wingers end up with the high paying corporate jobs (as do many of the achieving lefties). The result is the middle of the road liberal attorneys (and those who have loftier liberal principles than they do pecuniary ambition) all comprise its ranks. But let's call a spade a spade. When you spend 30% of your time fighting racial/sexual discriminaton cases against the government, 30% of your time on 1st Amendment cases involving taking God out of everything or protesting, 25% of your time on high profile terrorist or law enforcement beating a minority, and 15% "other", what do you think the ACLU will be considered? When the ACLU actually embraces the spectrum of issues and stops "over-representing" pet issues then your argument will have teeth. That will require more "moderate/conservative" law graduates to apply, and more ACLU acceptance of them and support of their aims and principles. Ain't gonna happen. quote: So to them,the ACLU "seems" left-wing.The right-wingers are sore losers,so instead of debating the issues,they name-call. Interesting words from the same guy who talks about "stolen elections". Interesting pointing of the finger when the other side cried about 2000 and 2004, called Jr. "Monkeyboy", "idiot" and everything else imaginable. I don't mind the conspiracy theories and the name-calling, but I do mind the usual hypocrisy of your posts in the thread. Righty do this. Righty is that. Righty be bad. Lefty do this. Lefty not that. Lefty has extenuating circumstances and is saddled with constraints from the Man of righty's world, which exempts lefty of all wrongdoing. Quoted says he's not this. Quoted launches on an anti-right tirade and defends known lefty orginazation as a moderate one while blaming rights for coloring it that way. Quoted is not fooling anybody. quote: The ACLU just follows the constitution,and lets the chips fall where they may.They just happen to fall against the right`s wishes,more often then they can bare. As above. Chips fall where they may my ass. They stack the deck and fold the hands they don't feel like playing.

Grlwithboy -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/23/2007 8:56:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Ghita, yes, I think that there's some truth to some people seeing only what they want in the Constitution. For instance, they're "real big" on the First Amendment in places like Boston, NYC, & San Francisco but in those places it's like there is no Second Amendment in the Constitution! They just skip right to the third. Well, it's kind of logical, because it's not like you can hit the BQE and shoot some quail with your buddies. I'm pretty foaming at the mouth left, but I disagree with most control legislation strongly on the basis that it's a completely cosmetic non-issue in relation to crime, thought up by people who have never had the distinct pleasure of living anywhere where they're more likely to be assaulted.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/23/2007 11:17:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Ghita, yes, I think that there's some truth to some people seeing only what they want in the Constitution. For instance, they're "real big" on the First Amendment in places like Boston, NYC, & San Francisco but in those places it's like there is no Second Amendment in the Constitution! They just skip right to the third. I'm pretty foaming at the mouth left, but I disagree with most control legislation strongly on the basis that it's a completely cosmetic non-issue in relation to crime, thought up by people who have never had the distinct pleasure of living anywhere where they're more likely to be assaulted. One of the problems with the "powers that be" on the left-hand side (not nec. the "grunt" supporters). They spread their message on the soap boxes then descend them to drive a fancy car back to the racially-homogenized suburbs and gated subdivisions with security or underworked over-represented (by comparison to other neighborhoods) police power. When one never experiences reality (or is removed from it for a long enough duration), it's easy to craft and preach lofty ideals with such conviction. As you point out with this issue however, it is clear they lack logic as well as experience, as it is that cosmetic approach that solves nothing other than the "showing" of concern.

popeye1250 -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/23/2007 11:24:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Ghita, yes, I think that there's some truth to some people seeing only what they want in the Constitution. For instance, they're "real big" on the First Amendment in places like Boston, NYC, & San Francisco but in those places it's like there is no Second Amendment in the Constitution! They just skip right to the third. Well, it's kind of logical, because it's not like you can hit the BQE and shoot some quail with your buddies. I'm pretty foaming at the mouth left, but I disagree with most control legislation strongly on the basis that it's a completely cosmetic non-issue in relation to crime, thought up by people who have never had the distinct pleasure of living anywhere where they're more likely to be assaulted. Girlwithboy, good point! Pulp, if someone finishes at the bottom third of their law school even if it's Harvard Law School they won't be getting a job offer at places like "Hale and Dorr" in Boston, they'll be going to the ACLU, SPLC, or a public defender's office in Cleveland for $40 an hour. Or, there's always those thousands of "Neighborhood Action Committees."

thompsonx -> RE: Gutenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/24/2007 10:28:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Girlwithboy, good point! Pulp, if someone finishes at the bottom third of their law school even if it's Harvard Law School they won't be getting a job offer at places like "Hale and Dorr" in Boston, they'll be going to the ACLU, SPLC, or a public defender's office in Cleveland for $40 an hour. Or, there's always those thousands of "Neighborhood Action Committees." popeye: Just which dark little orifice where the sun never shines did you extract this tidbit of puerile nonsense? thompson

Alumbrado -> RE: Gutenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/24/2007 10:33:32 AM)
Apparently he buys his ideas in bulk.

Sinergy -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/24/2007 8:15:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack The ACLU picking up the standard and actually living up their name (instead of pushing their pet issues) is as likely as the NAACP demanding that the Klan allow minorities within its ranks. I used to be forced to go to a required union meeting which was officiated by a die-hard member of the God Squad who felt it important to have prayers with everybody in a hall of 1000 people. A bunch of people (myself included) wrote letters and pointed out that this behavior was illegal. Before anybody accuses us all of being Godless scum, a friend of mine was also a letter writer, and he is more on the God Squad than the guy praying. What finally stopped this behavior and allowed for the separation of church and union meetings (i.e. our JOB) was a nice call from the ACLU pointing out the electric fence (being the statutes which require an employer or union to prevent proselytising in the workplace) the union official was urinating on, and the legal outcomes for the union of allowing this individual (or anybody else) continuing such behavior. Trash the ACLU all you want, but when a person's civil liberties are stepped on, regardless of race, creed, or color, they will do what needs to be done to keep everything ship-shape and Bristol fashion. Sinergy

Pulpsmack -> RE: Lautenberg's S.1237 - gun owners should read (7/25/2007 9:37:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Trash the ACLU all you want, but when a person's civil liberties are stepped on with respect to the selective pet issues they promote, regardless of race, creed, or color, they will do what needs to be done to keep everything ship-shape and Bristol fashion. Modify your post with what I have added and we are in agreement. My problem is not that the ACLU does work that preserves the integrity of certain amendments in the constitution. My problem is the representation (by them or others) that they are the "champion of civil liberties" or the "constitutional preservationists" when that is not true. Would Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. be considered the same man, would his deeds be considered the same deeds if it came to light that the scope of his vision was limited to the advancement of black people, and that Hispanics and/or homosexuals were not the same class of people with respect to his feelings and ideals? I suspect that it would change things dramatically. In this case, King Jr. would still be considered by his contemporaries as a great leader and advocate for the rights of black men and women. But he would not be considered a "champion of civil rights". The same applies to a group that takes a dim view of the "Mexicans" of The Constitution, and selectively works around their plight.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875