Yes. Let’s ask the Iraqis. I for one agree that it was Bush’s exemplary oratory that finally convinced Saddam to move out of his palace.:rolleyes:
Posted by pervert:
Well, it wasn’t armed resistance from his own people!
Yeah, but My cultist are alot more effective at securing there right to practise various unholy rituals, if they have guns. And deep ones would be alot more effective on land if they could use guns, but alas, everyone of them is terrible shot.
Comes of having fish eyes, no doubt.
How many times do I have to tell you, Cthulhu? Shoggoths if by land, Deep Ones if by sea!
Daniel
Why do you assume that the only issue at hand is civil liberties? Not every member of the SDMB is a card carrying member of the ACLU.
True, the 10th Amendment has been ignored. I don’t know why it would change if it were the only one left.
However, this is an academic argument. If actually enforced, I believe the 10th would be more important than the others. Keeping the federal government small is more important, IMHO than the rights that the other ammendments guarantee. Mostly because the other rights aren’t in as much risk. There isn’t a lobby fighting against the first ammendment. If it were up to the states, they would all ensure similar measures. Most state constitutions probably already provide such freedoms.
Posted by Debaser:
Isn’t that what this thread is about? What is the Bill of Rights for, if not to guarantee civil liberties?
No…
But it certainly wasn’t any non violent protests either.
It’s ok. I’m just baiting you a bit. I’ll leave you alone now. 
I think the 6th amendment…What?..Oh no reason I just like the 6th amendment.
The First. Although that would probably negate any chance of ever getting the Second back.
Peace,
mangeorge
I guess we would have to define what “civil rights” means.
I wouldn’t consider the right to bear arms civil rights (2nd). Also, when I think of civil rights I don’t think of the idea of limiting the federal governments power (10th). However, these are two of the more important things in the bill of rights, IMO.
Maybe they are civil rights, and I am just associating the term with the parts of the bill of rights that the ACLU decides to agree with. Just because the ACLU doesn’t like something doesn’t make it stop being a civil right, I guess.
Which part of the Bill Of Rights does the ACLU disagree with, Debaser?
The second ammendment.
Never heard a peep out of the ACLU about the 10th, either. It’s unfortunate that they’re pushing a specific agenda regarding civil rights rather trying to protect the Bill of Rights universally - if they did, I’d certainly support them.
Oh. I thought you were saying they were actively against some parts.
Everything considered, I support them.
You silly squid, why use firearms when you can use lightning bolts, fireballs, earthquakes, power words, unholy words, prismatic sprays, and death spells?
To say nothing of the magic buttons of the plant given by the heathen dogs.
Well, in a way, they are. If they’re respected as the foremost civil rights defense group, and they actively hold a position that there isn’t a right to keep and bear arms, then they’re against it, even if they’re not campaigning against it.