Slashdot Mirror
FISA Court Sides With ACLU Against Administration
jamie caught a breaking news story this evening: the secret FISA Court has ordered the Bush administration to respond by August 31 to an ACLU request for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. The ACLU's press release calls it an "unprecedented order."
Personally I believe the second amendment is what allows the citizens to overthrow the government should it become a tyranny, but the ACLU's position is along the same line as the Supreme Court's, and it is certainly a reasonable position.
We are not the EU. We're still a sovereign nation and we'll handle our internal shit ourselves.
Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't recall the ACLU acting against the 2nd Amendment, nor do I recall the NRA acting against the other Amendments (unspecified "socially-conservative positions" notwithstanding). Therefore, I don't see the problem with supporting both.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The only hole in that argument that I can think of is that it requires believing the US military would USE those sorts of weapons against American citizens on American soil. Since the US military has in the past flat out REFUSED to be deployed on US soil, I have a hard time believing they'd use those sorts of weapons, restricting the discussion to personal weapons anyway.
Given the events of the past 5 years or so though, this argument seems far less convincing... all the Fed need do is accuse a whole state of being 'terrorists' or whatever and a part of me can believe they'd allow that to justify almost any atrocity against Americans..
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
They're wrong. The Second Amendment is about defending ourselves from our own government, they're dead-on about that. I disagree that it is solely about States being the only entities in need of protection from an errant central government. The reality is, we individual citizens might just as well find ourselves in conflict with our State governments. What makes them so especially trustworthy, compared to the Federal Government? That's a fiction in itself. The Founders wanted us, the Citizens of these United States, to be something more than sheep.
We like to think our governments (any of them) will never need replacing, and that we'll never need violent defense from them, but history is against us on that score. This article outlines how a proper defensive posture made by a well-armed civilian population can deter violence and save lives. That's something else that was very clearly understood by the people who fought the War for Independence, and eventually created our system of government.
This dangerous idea that individual citizens (who, are a collective in their own right, regardless of any State's desire to formally organize them into some Militia) have no legitimate use for deadly force is disingenuous at best. That's not even counting the value of firearms when it comes to defending ourselves from each other! No, the Second Amendment is in need of no polish or other adjustments. It serves the purpose for which it was intended very well, and truly our need of it is greater now than at any point in our history. Our government is rapidly extending its powers without much regard for the checks and balances the Founders put in place for us, and at some point, it may go too far. If we allow ourselves to be made defenseless by believing that it can't happen here, we may well come to regret our complacency.
Very little of the Founding Father's wisdom is as anachronistic as people think (we believe we are somehow fundamentally superior to our forebears but we're not) and if you look at many of the failings of our culture and legal system today, it is usually because we decided to ignore that wisdom.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You just gotta love the spin...
i on.billofrights.html#amendmentii
Let's look at what the 2nd amendment does say...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
Militias are a thing of the past. The closest thing we have today is the National Guard and they aren't allowed to take their weapons home now are they? The whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment is to protect the State in case of invasion or other insurrection. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with protecting home, property, or any other personal use.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
One other point; it is very unfortunate that many people do not understand the English language as well as you do. My understanding is good, but even I have had a difficult time understanding the structure of the amendment. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Your assumption that a "well regulated militia" means an armed force under the control of the current government rather than an armed force dedicated to maintaining a free state is a poor one.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
By "well regulated" they mean well trained and competent.
I.e. Americans need not apply. Surely you will agree that people who continuously elect those governments you consider so incapable of handling weapons can not be considered "intelligent and well educated", right?
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.