civil liberties noun First Amendment guarantees, First Amendment Rights, freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, fundamental individual rights, guarantees from the Bill of Rights, human rights, individual rights, right to life, right to peacefully assemble, right to petition government for redress, right to privacy, right to property, right to worship Associated concepts: civil rights, protection against unwarranted governmental interference
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by benrl
"What about the children"
Point one, it doesn't seem to bother them when abortions kill 1.2 million children a year.
Point two, no-one has ever said that freedom doesn't come at a price. People seldom think about the double-edged aspect to freedom. Yes, we are free to speak, emote, dance, create, innovate, build, grow, etc. . .
But we are also free to harm, hurt, destroy, break, crush, maim.
It comes at a price. In a free society, we will always have people that want to hurt others. They are sad, sick individuals that need to be treated, locked up or shot!
The current government is trying to eliminate aspects of freedom to stop the expression to cause pain, terror, harm. But in doing so, they also have to eliminate the aspects of freedom that allow us to grow, heal, build, love, create.
As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have “serious concerns” about the bill.
Those concerns have the capacity to prove a major setback to Sen. Harry Reid’s current gun bill, which includes language from earlier bills introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer.
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties.
Originally posted by TheWrightWing
Folks would prefer nobody notice the long-view effort by Democrats to disarm citizens entirely.
Gun registration is an important step towards that end. Incrementally is how frogs are boiled.
Background checks would not have prevented any of the shootings Democrats are hysterically sobbing over, and they know it. Are Democrat voters/supporters knowingly treasonous or simply the end product of the generations long effort to dumb down the populace enough for the ruling class to finally ascend, not only unchallenged but cheered on?
Fascism is the seed of self destruction every society is burdened with, the trick is to try and manage it. Our founders did better than anyone could have hoped for, but entropy is a powerful universal force.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest
First I have heard of it after months and executive orders.
Guess better late than never.
Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by benrl
The children are EXACTLY why I hold my 2A so highly and proud!
Sure when children are murdered it is a tragedy but, when millions are murdered, it is a bit worse.
That is historically what happens to disarmed peoples.
The Second Amendment provides: "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."
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.
Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.
Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.