Back at you! There are hundreds of organizations, including most churches, fighting to support the First Amendment, but that doesn't stop the ACLU. Why is it only the Second that they insist on handing off to somebody else?
But as long as ultra-petty people like techno-vampire hate things for such trivial reasons...
What is it about people like you? Is it that hard to discuss something like this without insulting your opponent? I have been very careful in this to avoid saying anything offensive, but this is the second insult I've received in return. Oh well, I guess that shows how important your "moral high ground" really is, doesn't it?
No, I'm not, for a number of reasons, none of which are any of your business. I say that mostly because, having started off your post with an ad hominem attack on me, you have forfeited any moral rights in the discussion.
There are hundreds of organizations dedicated, in all or part, to upholding the First Amendment, and their combined resources are probably at least as great as those of the NRA, considering that there's probably a large overlap. (Consider that every, single, organized religious group is included and you'll see what I mean.)
The problem I have with them isn't based on my opinions on the Second Amendment, it's based on the fact that I believe that if they're interested in protecting Civil Rights, they shouldn't pick and chose which ones they support. I find their position hypocritical, to say the least.
I'm not a gun nut, I don't own a firearm, and I don't think that all gun control laws should be abolished. I do, however, think that the Second Amendment says quite clearly, "...keep and bear arms," and that exactly that was what the Founders meant.
It all comes down to trying to figure out what people 225+ years ago meant when they said "militia" and "arms". I guess that's why they made the Supreme Court.
I think it might be more accurate to say, "How does what people intended 225+ years ago apply to today's conditions?" Aside from that, a very interesting post.
ICBW, of course, but I suspect that the ACLU found a ruling it liked and decided that it was the One True Ruling and all others would be ignored. I hope not, but I've known too many people like that to be optimistic about it.
Do you refuse to support the NRA because they won't take on other civil rights cases?
No, I don't support them because I personally don't own a firearm. I also see no reason for them to become involved in cases not directly concerning firearms issues as I don't see why such things would be any of their business. I do, however, hold the various state ACLUs to a higher standard because they claim to be interested in all civil rights. I'll admit that they Did The Right Thing this time, but it's not exactly typical of them.
There's another example of that closer to home: from the late 1840s right up until 1860 American politics was like that. It wasn't Democrat vs Wigg anymore, it was North vs South. Southerners of both parties became allies in their fight to preserve slavery and Northerners did the same in self defense. In the end, the sectionalism tore the country apart in the Civil War.
That's what it started out as. Now, it's an organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda. The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment. As long as that's its position, I, among many others, want nothing to do with it.
Oh yes they did. They were very careful to follow the Geneva convention to the letter. One of the reasons, of course, is that if they didn't, we didn't have to either, although I'd like to think that we would have. To show you how careful they were, in (I think) 1943 they found a mass grave of Polish officers in a forest. (Can't remember the name off-hand or I'd give it.) Instead of covering it up, they called in the Red Cross and asked that whichever neutral was watching over the POWs investigate. At Nuremberg, the Russians made sure the Germans were charged with it, but there's good reason to think the Soviets were actually responsible.
I don't understand it myself, but I'll tell you when I do.
I hope neither of us ever does. How people can have more sympathy for people randomly shelling unarmed non-combatants than for their victims is something I really don't want to understand.
They'll shoot back anyway, all right, but none of what's aimed at them will get through.
Sounds good to me! The terrorists shooting rockets at civilians, including school children, get killed and the women, children and other non-combatants aren't harmed. Do you have a problem with that?
No, because whoever wrote that isn't in IT, he's a journalist. Writing articles to maximize the number of ads is an important part of his job. If he thought that writing pages like that was a Bad Thing, he'd be in a different industry.
I've heard that the whole Belgium thing isn't in the original British edition. It was added to the American one because his American publishers didn't want him using a certain four-letter word. Thus, one of the best bits in that book came from a piece of bowlderism. Don't know if it's true, of course, but if one of Slashdot's British readers could confirm or deny, I'd be grateful.
No. They're not contributors. They took the polished and finished work provided by the author and formatted it for the press. Illustrators only add a tiny amount of content, compared to the hard work of writing a book. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I know; I've written three novels. I can also ask any of the published authors I know and see what they think. The writer does almost all the work, and mostly alone.
When I saw the title, my first thought was that the article was about the old Dragnet TV show and Sgt. Joe Friday. I must admit that I was very disappointed to find out I was wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Back at you! There are hundreds of organizations, including most churches, fighting to support the First Amendment, but that doesn't stop the ACLU. Why is it only the Second that they insist on handing off to somebody else?
What is it about people like you? Is it that hard to discuss something like this without insulting your opponent? I have been very careful in this to avoid saying anything offensive, but this is the second insult I've received in return. Oh well, I guess that shows how important your "moral high ground" really is, doesn't it?
No, I'm not, for a number of reasons, none of which are any of your business. I say that mostly because, having started off your post with an ad hominem attack on me, you have forfeited any moral rights in the discussion.
I agree with them on that. However, have they ever opposed any gun control law, no matter what it said? I don't know, and I'd like to.
Thank you for correcting me. I sit corrected.
There are hundreds of organizations dedicated, in all or part, to upholding the First Amendment, and their combined resources are probably at least as great as those of the NRA, considering that there's probably a large overlap. (Consider that every, single, organized religious group is included and you'll see what I mean.)
I'm not a gun nut, I don't own a firearm, and I don't think that all gun control laws should be abolished. I do, however, think that the Second Amendment says quite clearly, "...keep and bear arms," and that exactly that was what the Founders meant.
I think it might be more accurate to say, "How does what people intended 225+ years ago apply to today's conditions?" Aside from that, a very interesting post.
ICBW, of course, but I suspect that the ACLU found a ruling it liked and decided that it was the One True Ruling and all others would be ignored. I hope not, but I've known too many people like that to be optimistic about it.
No, I don't support them because I personally don't own a firearm. I also see no reason for them to become involved in cases not directly concerning firearms issues as I don't see why such things would be any of their business. I do, however, hold the various state ACLUs to a higher standard because they claim to be interested in all civil rights. I'll admit that they Did The Right Thing this time, but it's not exactly typical of them.
I don't know why that would be true. It certainly doesn't stop them from becoming involved in First Amendment cases.
There's another example of that closer to home: from the late 1840s right up until 1860 American politics was like that. It wasn't Democrat vs Wigg anymore, it was North vs South. Southerners of both parties became allies in their fight to preserve slavery and Northerners did the same in self defense. In the end, the sectionalism tore the country apart in the Civil War.
Can I presume, then, that you're planning on voting for McCain in November?
That's what it started out as. Now, it's an organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda. The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment. As long as that's its position, I, among many others, want nothing to do with it.
In Soviet Russia, IPV6 migrated you!
Thank you, Sir Rodney, for that very important piece of information.
Oh yes they did. They were very careful to follow the Geneva convention to the letter. One of the reasons, of course, is that if they didn't, we didn't have to either, although I'd like to think that we would have. To show you how careful they were, in (I think) 1943 they found a mass grave of Polish officers in a forest. (Can't remember the name off-hand or I'd give it.) Instead of covering it up, they called in the Red Cross and asked that whichever neutral was watching over the POWs investigate. At Nuremberg, the Russians made sure the Germans were charged with it, but there's good reason to think the Soviets were actually responsible.
I hope neither of us ever does. How people can have more sympathy for people randomly shelling unarmed non-combatants than for their victims is something I really don't want to understand.
Sounds good to me! The terrorists shooting rockets at civilians, including school children, get killed and the women, children and other non-combatants aren't harmed. Do you have a problem with that?
No, because whoever wrote that isn't in IT, he's a journalist. Writing articles to maximize the number of ads is an important part of his job. If he thought that writing pages like that was a Bad Thing, he'd be in a different industry.
I've heard that the whole Belgium thing isn't in the original British edition. It was added to the American one because his American publishers didn't want him using a certain four-letter word. Thus, one of the best bits in that book came from a piece of bowlderism. Don't know if it's true, of course, but if one of Slashdot's British readers could confirm or deny, I'd be grateful.
Maybe so, but at least his BASIC point is right.
All of your salsa are belong to us!
No. They're not contributors. They took the polished and finished work provided by the author and formatted it for the press. Illustrators only add a tiny amount of content, compared to the hard work of writing a book. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I know; I've written three novels. I can also ask any of the published authors I know and see what they think. The writer does almost all the work, and mostly alone.
Nice! Was it the original Dragnet with Jack Webb that I remember watching in the '50s or a modern copy?
When I saw the title, my first thought was that the article was about the old Dragnet TV show and Sgt. Joe Friday. I must admit that I was very disappointed to find out I was wrong.