This has always puzzled me....

"Why hasn't the ACLU ever (to my knowledge) some out with STRONG support of the Second Amendment? That is a "civil right" ain't it?"

DK-

Lie down with dogs, rise up with fleas.

I mean. come on, DK - think about it.

John Ashcroft has come out with THE most controversial support of the Constitution in the last 50 years - that of supporting the Second Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL right.

Now, the people that HATE him (mainly anti-gunners) are painting him as wanting to shred teh Constitution??? When did these people give a rat's posterior about the constitution???

Its the old "Divide....and conquer strategy.

You are gettin' played, my good friend.

'The Second Amendment? What's that? - ACLU [>]:)]

DK -

Entertain this postulation....

I think Shrub and Ashcroft are JUST wily enuf tho throw out all these "red herrings" to get the anti_constitutionalists all in a tizzy, whilst Shrub and Ashcroft go about their REAL agenda. At least that is EXACTLY the way it is working out. The Marxists don't know HOW to handle Shrub. He is always one step ahead of them.

Anyway, you start attacking Ashcroft, and you play right into their hands. Call me crazy, but if a politician has the RIGHT position on the Second Amendment, I can forgive about ANY other faux pas on any other issue. By supporting the Second, that pol is saying "I guarantee you the right to countermand ANY legislation I put thru."

What more can you ask from a politician????

Pardon me, DK-Prof, but are you a foreign national? A resident alien? An illegal alien? Then do not worry too much about the relative lack of rights of non-citizens. Just consider them as if they're visitors to your home!

I mean how long would you let Bin Laden stay in your living room, uninvited, before you asked him to leave?

Are we not engaged in a war, the front lines of which appear to be along the Hudson and East Rivers? And post offices throughout our nation?

Well no one's been sent to the Star Chamber yet!
The Courts are all open the last time I checked.
We have a so-called 'free press' reporting on the perceived foibles of our government.

And no one's being hung out on meat hooks!

Forget the government for a moment, haven't the American People shown the good old-fashioned common sense that Americans have always been known to have?

You don't suppose a lot of this is for 'foreign consumption' do you? Like to let Bin Laden and his ilk know that there is no 'Dream Team' of lawyers waiting off stage, to assist them in the event they have to surrender to US forces?

Eric The(LetUsKnowWhenTheyComeForYou,TrustMe,We'llScreamLoudly!)Hun[>]:)]

Right now, this is all working, because those who are the targets of the "suspension of lawyer/client privilege", and the "military tribunals" are ARAB NON-AMERICANS, and those suspected in aiding and carrying out the 9-11 attacks. Americans will sit still for it.
When and IF these "tools" are turned upon, what Americans consider "real" Americans (us white guys), then we will see if Americans take it, or not.

Keep in mind, these "tools" and suspensions have been used before, and did not result in a slippery slope to Totalitarianism.  
On the other hand, that was then and this is now. We need to stay vigilent against terrorism AND the war against terrorism.

Some of us right-wing types seem almost giddy when stuff like this happens.  It's almost like they're hoping for government to act bad, in order to prove that the government IS bad. Be careful what you wish for...
It's like that same way those on the left seem to become almost giddy when reporting U.S. military set-backs.

i believe the tribunal question currently pertains only to foreign nationals. while not immediately threatening to me personally, it does make me nervous.

it's my opinion that the second amendment exists precisely so we can defend (as a last resort) the other 9 (and the rights, enumerated or not, therein). essentially an attack on any 1 is an attack on all.

i am extremely reluctant to see any of my rights encroached upon. these are dangerous times.  

Guys, we're at "checkmate" right now, I don't think joining the ACLU will mean much.

[url]http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/nov/14/edes111401.htm[/url]

The article is a bit sensational, but I can't deny that he's pretty much right about the current state of affairs.

I think the globalists just pulled the biggest fast one in history and we all went along for the ride.

Only armed resistance is going to matter from now on.

Of course you are protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  A simple rule of thumb is where it says "the people," it is talking about citizens, like in the 4th amendment.  When it uses other words to describe a person, like "no person" in the 5th or "the accused" in the 6th, it includes you and anyone else within our borders or within our government's control.  

Technically speaking, even POW's have the same rights you do, but according to Johnson v. Eisentrager the rights are temporarily suspended, just as they can be for any citizen (scary isn't that!), when the person is engaged in "armed hostilities against the United States."  That's why we can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and hold them without trial.  Technically, they still have the rights.z

Us peons, err I mean cizitens, can also be held indefinitely without charges.  Welcome to the club.  From the Constitution:

[i]The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.[/i]

So, whenever "the man" decides that it is in the best interest of public safety (whatever that is), the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended.  I've seen this used against (black) gun owners in the 60's, and I've heard it argued that gun owners should be held "in the interest of public safety" using the above quote from the Constitution as a justification. This power to suspend due process is given to all three branches of the government (including the BATF!). Think about that. The BATF has the right to hold you without cause, if they can show that it's in the interest of public safety. Even a president once ordered the suspension of the right to due process in several states: Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Washington(? I think that list is correct). While in this particular circumstance, I appreciate the fact that we can hold any terrorist suspect as long as needed, the past abuse and potential for future abuse, especially against gun owners, is something to be concerned about.z

I am very upset that this administration is pushing these issues.  If Gore won, and he was doing something similar, 99% of the people on this board would be screaming "UN Totalitarian"!  

Just last night on the news, I saw an old lady being interviewed about the National Guard at airports.  Her comments were, "Oh, I just love it, I feel so safe, and that's what it's all about!"  Bullshit!  It's all about freedom, and insuring that the mechanisims that provide for freedom can endure...

Remember that the anti smoking group got their first foot in the door by saying, "All we want to do is ban smoking on transcontinental airline flights."  Look what happened now...  I took note of this even though I am not a smoker.

These guys that say, only those who are doing something wrong should worry, really get my goat.  We saw what happened when the likes of Hillary Clinton got access (illegal I might add) to Republican legislators' files.  Yeah, nobody ever abuses their power...  

Legislators should not be given a pass in the name of "Security" in the same way that they have a pass when it comes to the "children".

You guys that think one part of the Constitution is more, or less, important than another need to pull your head out of your..er, ah, the sand.

The Second is there to protect the rest. When there is no "the rest" there is no second.

Relax fellas, executive orders are just that, they are not the law of the land. Executive orders can be reversed with the stroke of a single pen. And if Congress doesn't like what the president is doing they can change the laws.

These are draconian times that call for draconian measures...Congress did not declare WAR but we are at WAR never the less..

These are hardly draconian times,  most of our lives haven't changed one bit.  I'd hate to see what authorities would do if we really got rocked!  Of course, the S did indeed HTF in NYC, so they are excused.

It is my opinion that our civil rights are more important in bad times than in good, because that's when they will count the most.  Yeah, I know that the government has granted itself the power to cancel them...

Everyone needs to relax.  This decision ONLY APPLIES to non-citizens.  Matter of fact, its a slap on the face of the FORMER AG who decided to put the trial of the 1993 WTC bombers in Federal criminal court instead of military tribunal.

Can non-citizens be prosecuted under our laws with the same ferocity that citizens can be???

I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I think non-citizens just get deported, NOT prosecuted. And that makes sense. If they are not citizens, under what basis do we prosecute them???

As such, non-citizens are not and should not be afforded the same Constitutional protections.

I know that sux, but its consistent logic.

I mean, think about it. How can American law POSSIBLY apply to non-Americans???? Are Cuban citizens afforded the protections of the US Constitution??? Are they required to abide by American jurisprudence?? Does it make any difference if they live in Cuba, or if they live here??

If someone is NOT willing to become a US citizen, and make the USA their FIRST allegiance, then why should they get first-rate protections that the citizens who DO make the USA their first allegiance???

And just let me say, I'm willing for ALL to become US citizens, regardless of nationality - IF, and ONLY IF, they give their first allegiance, in reality their ONLY national allegiance to the USA.

if you REALLY want those types of protections, DK, you KNOW how to get them. Come on over, I'll welcome you with open arms.

The law applies the same to both citizens and non citizens.  Are citizens the only ones that have to follow the law?  No!  Deportations may be the remedy for minor offenses, but I assure you that non citizens go to the slammer just as quickly as anyone else.  Think that there are no Mexican nationals in Cali jails?

If you are here (legally), the constitution applies to YOU!  If you are here illegally, it also applies to you, but if your only crime is being illegal, you may find that the due process that the constitution afforded you will end up in deportation..

Does anyone here honestly beleive that if Bin Laden is captured, and not killed, that he; or any of his associates, deserve to be tried in a U.S. Court and not prosecuted in a Military Tribunal?  Get your heads out of your arses;  THIS IS WAR ON TERRORISM ! ! !  These proposed new rules apply to non-US citizens only.
Extreme times require extreme measures!


[IMG]http://www.gopfun.com/images/superw.gif[/IMG]

Ok, there is one provision that bother me though... that is the provision that the AG can declare any [b]domestic[/b] group to be a threat to national security, and then they fall under these same rules.

What if, say, AR15.com was declared to be a threat to national security - you think you'd be safe then?

yeah, I know, I need to go find my tin foil hat, but tell me it doesn't bother you - just a little bit?

You're missing the point.  These new ones do indeed only effect non citizens, but almost all other legislation applies to all.  This exception has put a socially acceptable face on unconstitutional behavior.  The "it's ok, he's not a citizen anyway" defense isn't an intelligent one.  It's a way to justify otherwise illegal behavior.  The rules of society apply to all.  

Citizen-Legal Driver, caught speeding, ticket, fine paid, done
Non citizen-Legal Driver, caught speeding, ticket, fine paid, done
Illegal-Obvously Illegal Driver, Caught speeding, no/forged paperwork, traffic fines levied, case upgraded to INS

The law is applied evenly in the above examples.


PS, these are not extreme times...

It is EXPLICITLY stated these measures are only to be applied to terrorists implicated in the WTC hijackings and anthrax spore mailings.  

I guess I should expect such reaction from one willing to embrace the ACLU whose take on The RTKBA is one of a collective right to form a National Guard.  

If you are not a citizen, why do you have a right to the benefits of our Constitution?  These are G-d-given rights and either you came here to belong to "...one nation, under G-d..." or are just here visiting.  

When in Rome...

    We are at war and the most dangerous enemy is hiding within the general population. The government needs to be able to act quickly and must have broad powers to do so. It's security--plain and simple-- and it's there to protect us.I'm all for it! We can't take the ACLU/Media attitude that the Fifth Reich is springing up.
     

Anybody know the directions to boil a frog?

Sheep.

You are all sheep.

I think the directions are different for non indigenous frogs.

I think not.

It depends more on which frogs you are intending to boil.

Remember this:

IF a nuke or a major plague is unleashed on U.S. soil, there will be Martial Law, panic, absolute economic collapse (Depression/Starvation), and the end of ALL the freedoms we enjoy.

Just keep that in mind.

G.Gordon Liddy spent a good part of his show talking about Ashcroft and his "tribunals" today. As a Libertarian, I frequently disagree with G. Gordon but he was right on the mark today. Liddy called Ashcroft "out of touch and dangerous". This action by the AG is blatantly unconstitutional and Ashcroft is revealing himself as no friend to the Bill Of Rights.

Given the choices above, I'll join the ACLU.

    Do you think you might be reading a bit too much Kafka? I do!

 
    Enjoy it and tell Jane Fonda I send my regards. I need to go pack for a trip to Auburn, Alabama for the Auburn/Alabama game Saturday. Should hell break loose again ( like 9/11 ) I'm going to drive the short distance from Auburn to the general store in Opelika and get totally armed and stay there.
    You can go support the ACLU and I'm sure they will protect you. God Bless!
     

   Liddy never appeared out of touch and dangerous to you? I guess you really liked Janet Reno! Don't be deceived by the good looks and great body! She was anti-everything except liberal.

My!

A tad presumptuous aren't we.

How in hell did you ever get that I support or even give a rat's ass about Hanoi Jane.

I do support her right to do what she ever did so long as she is willing to accept the consequences of her actions.

You on the other hand seem willing to, if at the very least condoning, selling the rest of my rights out, down the river so to speak, in the name of the patriotic fervor that has blinded so many, in the hopes that truth and justice will prevail and the hell if truth and justice are trashed in the process.

Sheep.

I don't believe these are extreme times at all!  In fact, our leaders are only seemingly justifying the thoughts of those who think so with such measures.  We are not very strong as a nation if we cannot endure being sucker punched by international thugs without falling into a national depression.  Consider some of these reasons illustrating why times are good:
- Banking System Solvent
- However misdirected, the current administration is an honorable one
- While in a hiccup, the economy isn't in a downward spiral
- Nobody is fighting who didn't volunteer, and the enemy is given credit in being called third world
- Fuel is flowing, and the stores are stocked with food

I'm not saying things are great, but they are far from extreme.  The nation doesn't require band-aids stuck all over what some think are weak spots.  This "because they need it" rationale is a poor one because it presumes that nothing could be done under the current system.  Do you really think that a judge wouldn't issue a search warrant if there was a hint of evidence.  These new rules are evidence optional.

Do not feel that those of us that are against the measures that started this thread in the first place would like terrorisim to flourish.  We want it stomped out too, but when operating in the borders of this country, we want proper measures to ensure no damage to our freedoms.  Note that I didn't follow the word freedom with "that we take for granted".  We don't take them for granted, because that would assume that they can be revoked by the authorities when they feel constrained by them.  (Yeah, I know that they do that already, but I'm on a soap box here!)  Whenever someone says that, they will follow it up with a pitch for restrictions.

Part of what makes this a great country is the fact that there is a balance of power.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I'll vote to maintain a balance any day.  

As far as your second question, I'll let you evaluate the poster 1Shot1Kill's situation.

There is risk in living in a country as free as ours.  One cannot remove that risk without also removing that freedom.  The risk we are currently living under is very low.  The chances of being killed in a car commuting to work daily are far greater than any terrorist threat, even with the NYC precedent.  I am not the one willing to give up the freedoms America provides, which makes me very, very American!

Enjoy the football game...

My comments aren't directed to anyone - just making statements.

I too am of the school of thought that if a politician stands by me on the 2nd Ammendment, I can overlook just about any other differences.  If he wants to disarm me, I don't care what he offers or provides - he is my ENEMY!

That being said, the ACLU is my ENEMY!

They claim to stand for American Civil Liberties - but *I* only seem to hear about them supporting Godless, abhorrent behavior.  You want to worship Satan?  The ACLU is there!  You want to join NAMBLA and support men cornholing boys?  The ACLU is there!  Want to burn a flag, piss on a crucifix, start a coven of witches, prevent a school prayer ............the ACLU is there?

Hey - I'm not at all uptight or prude, ok?  I cuss, drive too fast at times, have been heard to put down some things regarding organized religion, love having kinky sex with my wife, ect... - BUT - I do have a code of morals and the ACLU supports *rabidly* things that I think are wrong.

Tate

Good God Tate, read the whole thread.

This ain't just about joining the ACLU.

It's more like Nazi's vs ACLU.

GunPatriot-
Liddy is a strict constitutionalist and as such is frequently a natural ally of libertarians. I suspect your opinion of him comes mostly from reports in the popular press. If you read his book "Will" you find he is more thoughtful than his rep implies.
Also, my opinion of El Reno is shared by Liddy. She was the biggest disaster to happen to the Justice Department in decades. You seem to be adept at misreading peoples meanings.

I'm pretty much with Tate.


Any organization that CLAIMS to support civil rights but REFUSES to side STRONGLY AND EVIDENTLY with the Second Amendment protecting an individual right to own firearms is a FARCE.

Add on ACLU running interference for gene-pool diluters like NAMBLA, NOW, flag burners, and those who tell kids they can't pray ANYWHERE they want to, and you are looking at my natural enemy.

[size=6][red]A [/red][/size=6] merican

[size=6][red]C [/red][/size=6] ommunist

[size=6][red]L [/red][/size=6] iberties

[size=6][red]U [/red][/size=6] nion