ACLU sues Jeppesen for Flights

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Laws passed that have attacked the right it was written to protect, you
idiot.

Examples?

gatt wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

I prefer not to talk about my gun collection, but let's just say I
haven't needed the ACLU and I've thrown a whole hell of a lot of
7.62x39 downrange on many occasions including those where law
enforcement was also present.
-c

Well, you and I are lucky that we live in states and cities that
haven't passed laws that outlaw such guns. The same can not be said
for all of our fellow US citizens.

Ahh... you might have a point there. If I have idle time this
afternoon I'm going to try to see if the ACLU ever defended a 2nd
Amendment issue although I'm not sure that it's a battle they could
win if they tried.

If you find a 2nd Amendment case they've championed please let me know. I've
been involved in gun rights activity for over 20 years and never came across
one.

The ACLU backing gun rights would have one of two affects. Either they would
lose a large base of their support because of it or the anti-gun movement
would lose a large base of their support because the easily led supporters
would say, "Oh my God, gun rights is a civil rights issue because the ACLU
says so."

Although I take the anti-ACLU stuff with a grain of salt (anytime the
words "liberal", "communist" or "neocon" are used, I'm immediately
suspicious), I'm certainly not ready to extend the ACLU the benefit
of the doubt.
-c

Take it with a big grain of salt but the history of the organization is
studded with out right communists and socialists who did not and do not have
the best interest of the USA foremost in their mind. Just a little research
will show you that. I learned it in the chambers of a Democrat state judge
when I was a reporter right out of school. He was later appointed to a
federal judgeship by Clinton.

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place
in this country are, unfortunately, not.

Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.

I don't support them either. As a matter of fact I'd place them on pretty
equal levels of "not a good thingness."

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.

I don't support them either. As a matter of fact I'd place them on pretty
equal levels of "not a good thingness."

Sorry. I didn't really mean to imply that you did. I was trying to create
that sense of often parallel, extreme ideologies that are, as you say, "not a
good thingness"

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200706/1

Jim Logajan wrote:
"gatt" wrote:
If I have idle time this
afternoon I'm going to try to see if the ACLU ever defended a 2nd
Amendment issue although I'm not sure that it's a battle they could
win if they tried.

I'll try to save you some time by providing a link to the ACLU web
site that states the position of the ACLU national group on one hand
and another link wherein the Texas chapter of the ACLU of Texas
actually joined with the NRA in defending gun rights:

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep
and bear arms?""

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

"The ACLU Defends Gun Rights"

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html

If anyone ever forms a U.S. national organization that defends all our
civil rights then I would support it.


I especilly like this from the ACLU site

"IN BRIEF
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. "

I wonder how they would react if there were a law that required you to be
registered to speak?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Laws passed that have attacked the right it was written to protect,
you idiot.

Examples?

Feel free do do you own research. It shouldn't be hard.

On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 14:31:02 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place
in this country are, unfortunately, not.

Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.

I don't support them either. As a matter of fact I'd place them on pretty
equal levels of "not a good thingness."


http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/
I do not think it is arrogant of me to claim that I had already
discovered these four objections (as well as noticed the more
vulgar and obvious fact that religion is used by those in temporal
charge to invest themselves with authority) before my boyish voice
had broken.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
I especilly like this from the ACLU site

"IN BRIEF
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. "

I wonder how they would react if there were a law that required you to
be registered to speak?

I applaud some of the fights that the ACLU picks. But on a number of issues
they are clearly in favor of state power rather than civil liberties. The
historical context (a bunch of rebels - literally self-armed civilians)
makes the intent of the Second Amendment clear. And a lot of state
constitutions explicitly grant individuals the right to keep and bear arms.
Here's a nice summary of what state constitutions provide (and don't
provide) in terms of the right to own arms:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

I see at least two states whose constitutions (or declaration of rights)
date from within couple years of the federal constitution that explicitly
grant individuals the right to keep and bear arms:

"Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted
1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military
should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil
power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII."

"Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military
should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil
power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15)."

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote in message
news:734126e6bb945@uwe...

Which is emblematic of their origins, and their original (and even today)
purpose.

I suspect you DO know what they were, don't you?

Oh jesus, you're not going to start spouting "Red Scare" crap are you?
Spare us. Communism (on a large scale) is dead.

Crap?

You mean the stuff the dug out of the Soviet archives?

That crap?

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote in message
news:73419b1d491a8@uwe...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place in this
country are, unfortunately, not.

Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.

Before you shove your poop encrusted foot into your mouth, you might find
out the beliefs of the person you are refering to.