ACLU Puts Final Nail in Harry Reid's Senate Gun Grabbing Agenda?

ACLU Puts Final Nail in Harry Reid's Senate Gun Grabbing Agenda?

When the Uber Liberal ACLU tells Harry Reid he's going too far, Constitutionally speaking, you get to thinking that the Feinstein Sister's created Gun Grabbing Agenda is in its death throes in the U.S. Senate.

The Gubbmint's got its drones. It's got its nanotech surveillance cameras in your toilet to monitor what you are eating. Eventually even liberals start to shout, "Enough is Enough."

The ACLU let Harry Reid know that the Constitution provides rights....still.

Otherwise, what would the Uber Liberal ACLU have to do to kill time if they weren't fighting for Constitutional Rights?


EXCLUSIVE: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties

Read more: dailycaller.com...

reply to post by coltcall


Liberals will always be liberals. They'll be silly, and make silly laws and say silly things.

But progressives?

They are disguised as democrats and republicans. They undermine the Constitution at every turn. They pit one another against each other. They are divisive. They want to see the fundamental transformation of the United States. Their actions are sometimes treasonous. They have infiltrated every aspect of our society.

It is up to all of us, liberal and conservative, to see that these liars, these inexcusable cowards, see the end of their careers in shame and defeat.

It's about time the self-declared protector of civil rights and liberties took the right side of this and got with the freedom program.

Love guns, hate guns or just have no opinion...it's about far more than that and ANY right denied ...ANY of them...puts them ALL at risk to be next. They have spent their entire organizational life protecting the rights of such utter scum as NAMBLA and the American Nazi's because the principles at stake went far above the scum who formed the example. I support them in THAT way, too. They get far too aggressive sometimes, but I'd rather that than have them stay out of fights that matter.

(applause to the ACLU) Welcome to the party, guys... It's a lonely place to be at times.

The ACLU is not against background checks per se.

Calabrese — a privacy lobbyist — was first careful to note that the ACLU doesn’t strictly oppose universal background checks for gun purchases. “If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.

They just don't want records kept indefinitely.

Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

EXCLUSIV E: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties

No need to keep records once a background check is passed.

But once Harry Reid is silenced....another Gubbming Group takes up the slack?

And we can wager that the ATF will accept anonymous tips............

The ATF Wants ‘Massive’ Online Database to Find Out Who Your Friends Are


The ATF doesn’t just want a huge database to reveal everything about you with a few keywords. It wants one that can find out who you know. And it won’t even try to friend you on Facebook first.

www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com...

reply to post by coltcall


ATF = Always Think Forfeiture. They literally HAD that little 'unofficial motto" engraved on a set of Leatherman Tools for a training event, if you can believe it. Yeah, it ALWAYS starts as "only this far" and "it won't do this or that".

I believe if they need to be making statements about what something won't do before it even exists? They're telling us what they WANT it to do but it just can't accomplish for real or political reasons in phase 1. That's all.

reply to post by coltcall

Well the ACLU has always been portrayed as this "liberal" group.

But as their name implies, they stand for or should stand for civil liberties.

I think this misconception comes from the fact that they have tried to defend the rights of the accused.

They have slammed Obama on a bunch of issues.

So whats their stance on guns? Not exactly sure but if they were consistent, they should support the 2nd Amendment.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by coltcall

 

Well the ACLU has always been portrayed as this "liberal" group.

But as their name implies, they stand for or should stand for civil liberties.

I think this misconception comes from the fact that they have tried to defend the rights of the accused.

They have slammed Obama on a bunch of issues.

So whats their stance on guns? Not exactly sure but if they were consistent, they should support the 2nd Amendment.

edit on 6-4-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

The ACLU is politically motivated in the legal stands they will take. If a minority is justifiably shot while committing a crime, the ACLU will go to the aid of the dead criminal's parents to make political points for themselves.

I suppose there is no way to fairly fight for civil rights. One individual's civil rights is another individual's bad luck.

Say, I just read that Trayvon Martin's parents settled a lawsuit with the home owner's association where Trayvon Martin was selling drugs and casing out homes to burglarize before he was justifiably shot attacking George Zimmerman.

Though the amount of the settlement to the Trayvon Martin family is secret.....well....you got to give Trayvon Martin's mom credit for collecting cash settlements over her dead son's body.

And I wonder where this latest Michael Jackson lawsuit is headed.

Anyway, the ACLU will side with whomever is getting the most sympathy from the public and media.

Originally posted by coltcall
Say, I just read that Trayvon Martin's parents settled a lawsuit with the home owner's association where Trayvon Martin was selling drugs and casing out homes to burglarize before he was justifiably shot attacking George Zimmerman.

This is getting a bit off topic but I'm curious as to where you got this information.

From everything I've read, Trayvon Martin was staying in the community with his father and his father's fiance. Does that preclude him from plotting crimes? No, but from the 911 call, its clear to me that Zimmerman had assumed that Martin was guilty.

Its also clear that Martin had run away and despite the 911 operator telling Zimmerman not to chase, he did anyway...

Hell, one could argue that Zimmerman hunted him down...

reply to post by gladtobehere


www.usatoday.com... here is your link

articles.orlandosentinel.com... i think this is a civil matter and not a criminal one so i have no idea if this will impact the case or not

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

www.usatoday.com... here is your link

articles.orlandosentinel.com... i think this is a civil matter and not a criminal one so i have no idea if this will impact the case or not

When it comes to a jury trial for George Zimmerman, you can bet the Martinville prosecutors will be reminding the jury that the home owner's association paid the Martin money grabbers off in a lawsuit. Which the Martinville prosecutors are hedging with turn into a 'guilty' thought in each of the jurors.

Whereas the home owner's association just got tired of Al Sharpton's minions picketing their gated community.

Not to forget that every homeowner will have to divvy up a portion of the proceeds to pay for Trayvon Martin's crimes.

It's a violation of an American's civil rights to be made to pay cash for a criminal's illicit activities. But, hey....that's what the liberal media is there for.

In the mean time, it's ironic that the ACLU is telling Harry Reid that he is violated American civil rights.

Wow. What a crazy, pool table world we live in, heh?

Interesting......I wonder if there are 'rewards' in snitch city?


Snitch city

Calabrese also told The Daily Caller something else he’s worried about: school tip lines. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) threw that into the bill. All schools must set these tip lines up. Then anyone can report a “potentially dangerous student” using this line. Report – to whom? Report what? And what do Senators Reid and Boxer expect the schools to do with these tips?

The American Civil Liberties Union is an unlikely Second Amendment advocate. Roger Baldwin started that group to expel religion from public life. But when you start an outfit that big, you attract those who take your name seriously. So it is now with simple matters of privacy.

Chris Calabrese, a “top lobbyist” specalizing in privacy, explained things to Vince Coglianese of The Daily Caller. Calabrese sees two problems with the Harry Reid universal background check law.
www.conservativenewsandviews.com...

Since when is a background check called gun grabbing?

Does everything even remotely associated with gun legislation automatically mean that the government's going to bust down your door and take all your guns away?

Originally posted by links234
Since when is a background check called gun grabbing?

Does everything even remotely associated with gun legislation automatically mean that the government's going to bust down your door and take all your guns away?

Was that yet another liberal rhetorical comment?

Yes. If this Gubbmint can get away with kicking down your doors, you better believe they've been practicing kicking down doors in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere for a long time. They'll kick down your door.

The doors they are most likely to kick in are the liberal doors. Why? Cause liberals have already freely given away their civil rights. First to criminals. Then to the Gubbmint. Or maybe the other way around. Who cares? I'm not a liberal. Liberals fully expect to have their doors kicked down by somebody. When it eventually happens to them, they make themselves happy complaining.

The Gubbmint and criminals both have a lot more respect for those who don't freely give away their civil rights. But liberals foolishly think Gubbmint cares about them and will take care of them from cradle to grave.

reply to post by coltcall

Originally posted by coltcall
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

Oh, oh....we got us another of those bleeding heart liberals who believe drug dealing and burglary was Trayvon Martin's civil right.

And you wonder why we aren't going to give up our Second Amendment. That was a rhetorical statement.

Where is the evidence of this alleged drug dealing and burglary?

At this point, I consider myself to be relatively well informed about the case and this is the first I'm hearing of this.

What do facts have to do with being a liberal or conservative?

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

This is information on the settlement.

I was referring to coltcall's comments about Trayvon being a drug dealer and planning to burglarize homes. I saw no mention/evidence of this anywhere.

Coltcall then went on to say that Zimmerman killed Trayvon in self defense when in fact, Trayvon ran away before Zimmerman got out of his car. Zimmerman then chased him down against the instruction of the 911 operator...

reply to post by links234

Because universal background checks have to go through NICS which means that every sale will be recorded or registered.

Why should the government know who is armed?

Why shouldn’t people be allowed to freely buy and sell private property without government permission?

The new law would create records of sales and databases.

Since many gun controllers openly say they want a total ban of certain kinds of firearms, or all firearms, why wouldn’t gunowners fear that registration will lead to confiscation?

You have to understand that our rights are always taken away incrementally, never all at once.

Originally posted by links234
Since when is a background check called gun grabbing?

Does everything even remotely associated with gun legislation automatically mean that the government's going to bust down your door and take all your guns away?

So what do you expect?

Go complain to people like Dianne Feinstein and Andrew Cuomo. If they hadn't overreached so badly and so publicly in the opening days of this gun control push, you might have actually seen some of this pass at the national level. Instead, they scared the living daylights out of most of the gun owners in the country, people that never trusted the Democratic party or the Obama administration on the issue to begin with. If they didn't already, those people are certainly going to see an ulterior motive in anything they try to pass now.