I disagree. From US v Miller
The sawed off shotgun was not allowed as it is not necessary to the preservation of a well regulated militia. Your rights to own a gun are restricted to those necessary to the preservation of a well regulated militia. In other words, a collective right and not an individual one.
If you know of someone in a better position to know what’s a better product than the people shopping for it, go right ahead.
I’d have to make distinctions – if you’re just talking about programming code, I agree, it’s a mistake to grant it copyright protection. But if you’re talking about real creative output, like what you actually see on the screen in a meticulously crafted computer game or a novel, then I don’t think the public has or should have an unfettered right. What if I was to re-publish, say, The Nanny Diaries, for example, leaving everything the same except for making minor changes that made the narrator a virulent anti-Semite and racist, either because it amuses me or because I want to see more books with racist characters and I can’t be bothered to write one from scratch? I don’t think creative works should be freely available as a “tool” for people to use how they wish in this manner.
Excuse please? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I quoted you. Its right there.
You want to retreat from an indefensible position, having been roundly clobbered for it? Peachy. Go, and sin no more. But “making this stuff up and attributing it to me”? Do you really think anybody here is dumb enough to buy this buttwhistle?
But it is inconsistent when they claim that "Our job is to conserve America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
The ACLU does seem to be somewhat loosely aligned with what’s in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Some areas of the ACLU agenda overlap with the bill of rights and constitution, such as them fighting to protect freedom of speech with CFR. Some areas they ignore them, such as the 2nd and 10th ammendments. In other areas they fight for things not present at all like their stance on religion and teenage STD rates.
D’oh! I posted this first! Forty minutes ago. I just didn’t submit it until now. Stupid conference call distracted me. 
Oh, bullshit.
I said that “the ACLU is showing itself to be a anti-american organization.”
You then put these words in my mouth: “I’m sure friend Debaser does not mean to imply that the ACLU is motivated by villainy and a keen desire to harm America.”
If you cannot limit yourself to responding to my actual posts without making stuff up out of whole cloth, then please just don’t respond at all.
You’ve got a point, and I respect what you are saying. However, I do think that one must be deliberately and concsiously against America as an attitude or goal in order to be properly labelled anti-American. It’s possible to simply be misguided and/or foolish enough to be anti-American in extreme situations like that of the ACLU.
If your plan is to fix your car to run on solar power and you break it, then you aren’t anti-Toyota. If you proposed legislation forcing Toyota to make all it’s cars run on solar power even though such a thing is not possible and would harm their business, then you could accurately be called anti-Toyota. Even if you just intend to help the environment, and don’t deliberately want to be against Toyota, the end result of the proposal harms them so much that that’s the only fair label for it.
Simple disagreement about what policies are best for the US is fine. Everyone has a right to an opinion. But, this is a fairly extreme example. There’s nothing to be gained from releasing the photos. There is a clear danger and harm that will be done to the country from releasing them. Regardless of the motives, taking action to force the release despite these dangers is anti-American IMO.
Er, your quote confirms what I just said – the court ruled on the question of whether or not a specific weapon fell within the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, not the question of whether or not Mr. Miller as an individual has a general right to bear arms.
I’m sure debaser will find an excellent model for the rules he wishes we had in the laws of Communist China, which seem to be use prevention of speech and writing that might hurt the state as justification.
Better still: In English common law, there used to be a crime of “seditious libel,” which meant publishing anything that tended to erode the public’s confidence in state authorities. And, unlike with the civil torts of libel and slander, the truth of the statement published was no defense to the crime; to the contrary, the rule was, “the greater the truth, the greater the libel.” On account of, you know, everybody’s interest in having an effective government, and it couldn’t be effective if nobody trusted it. :rolleyes: But the U.S. consciously rejected that way of thinking when we adopted the First Amendment, and it had come into disrepute here long before that. See the Zenger case of 1735: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenger
I repeat what I said to Debaser earlier: Propaganda must be false to be objectionable. That is the only truly American way and, moreover, the only rational way to view it.
I take it, then, that you would not object to any characterization of yourself, the Republican party, or the current administration, as “anti-American?” From where I’m sitting, you all have ideas that, despite your intentions, clearly will cause so much harm to the country that it’s only fair to label you for it. Obviously, you’ll disagree that your actions are causing any harm to the country, but you surely wouldn’t be insulted by the label, correct?
The meat of our arguments seems to be that the unreleased pictures of Abu-Ghraib atrocities to not convey any new information that the public does not already have, so let me focus on that point. “Everybody knows what occurred at Abu Ghraib”? How do you justify such a statement. We’ve heard statements from everybody from all over the place declaring that what happened at Abu Ghraib was nothing but a bit of harmless fun and well within the confines of what the inmates deserved. Considering that in reality many people were murdered, there was rape and severe torture and a large percentage of the inmates held at Abu Ghraib were totally innocent, how do you justify the claim that everyone knows what happened at Abu Ghraib, and thus that the ACLU’s case won’t bring to light any new information?
Do you see that it is a reasonable differing point of view that calling someone anti-american implies an anti-american motive, and hence it would be best not to use the term unless you wish to accuse anti-american motives?
Here’s a list of headlines re the ACLU position on freedom of religion vs the freedom to not be offended by somebody else’s religion:
9/14/2005 ACLU Threat Removes 23rd Psalm from Courthouse
The 23rd Psalm display which stood at the Oglethorpe County Courthouse in Lexington, Georgia, has been removed amidst the threat of a lawsuit from the ACLU. The Georgia chapter of America’s so-called protector of all freedoms called the display essentially the same as a Ten Commandments display.
8/16/2005 ACLU Compares Praying Christians to Terrorists
After members of the Tangipahoa Parish (La.) School Board hosted a conference to discuss religious liberties in the public schools, an ACLU spokesman compared the board members seeking to pray at meetings to “the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country.”
8/11/2005 ACLU Sues to Stop County Commission Prayers
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a federal lawsuit against the Cobb County (Ga.) Commission, demanding that the county bar overtly Christian prayers.
7/29/2005 ACLU Seeks Non-Christian Texts for Courtroom Oaths
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of North Carolina to force state and county courts to provide alternative texts for witnesses who refuse to swear an oath on the Holy Bible.
6/14/2005 ACLU Seeks to Jail Teachers Who Pray
After federal courts imposed a ban on school prayer in the Tangipahoa Parish (La.) School District, the ACLU is asking a federal judge to arrest all teachers or administrators who violate the order.
6/8/2005 ACLU Chapter Sues Legislator for Saying “Jesus”
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) has filed a federal lawsuit against the Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives, Brian Bosma, for using the name of Jesus in the body’s opening prayers.
5/19/2005 ACLU Contends Abstinence Education Violates Church and State
The ACLU has filed a lawsuit alleging that an abstinence education program has been the recipient of federal funds in violation of the so-called separation of church and state. Since 2003, the Silver Ring Things, an abstinence education group based in Pennsylvania, has received more than $1 million in federal money earmarked for faith-based initiatives, which President Bush has courageously supported since nearly the inception of his presidency.
5/9/2005 ACLU Sues to Block Ohio “Choose Life” Plates
On April 27, the ACLU of Ohio filed a lawsuit against a state law that allows the state to produce and sell “Choose Life” license plates.
3/18/2005 ACLU Opposes Federal Land Lease to Church
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is attempting to block the federal government from leasing a piece of land to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), where more than 100 Mormons died in 1856.
1/31/2005 ACLU Omits Religion From Constitution Tutorial
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — often criticized for infringing on America’s free expression of religion — has been caught red-handed attempting to edit the First Amendment on its own website. Specifically, the organization’s website omitted any mention of religion in its discussion on the First Amendment.
1/31/2005 ACLU Battles City Over Christian Calendar
In Greer, South Carolina, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed an official complaint with city officials, arguing that the Commission of Public Works (CPW) inappropriately published a calendar that includes Bible verses.
1/26/2005 ACLU Targets Louisiana Abstinence Program, Again
The ACLU is claiming that Louisiana is acting in violation of a 2002 court settlement over the administration of a statewide abstinence-education program. Saying that the program “promotes religion,” the ACLU wants the court to hold the state in contempt. In the settlement, the state agreed to tightly monitor spending to ensure that no money would go to “promote religion.”
1/26/2005 Coach Forced to Halt Prayer After ACLU Threatens
A high school wrestling coach in Michigan was ordered to stop leading prayers with team members, after the ACLU threatened to sue the Lincoln Consolidated School District. Though the prayer was not mandated, the entire team participated, quite unlike the ACLU, who has effectively mandated that team members not voluntarily pray. This is a defense of rights?
1/10/2005 ACLU Halts Pursuit of Restraining Order for Intelligent Design Policy
The ACLU has backed away from a restraining order against the Dover (Penn.) Area School District to prevent the district from enforcing a new policy that allows the teaching of theories of the origins of life other than evolution. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in December 2004, which is still scheduled to go to trial later this year.
12/15/2004 ACLU Plans Intelligent Design Lawsuit
A lawsuit is expected from the ACLU challenging the decision by the Dover (Penn.) School District’s decision to teach alternatives to the theory of evolution alongside Darwinism.
11/23/2004 ACLU Targets Abstinence Education Program
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is threatening a lawsuit against the state of Louisiana with a lawsuit because a state-run website promoting abstinence mentions God. The ACLU’s threat is that unless the Governor’s Program on Abstinence removes the religious references from its website within 30 days, a lawsuit will be filed in federal court.
11/17/2004 Rhode Island City Beats ACLU’s Christmas Lawsuit
The city of Cranston, Rhode Island, has successfully defended its right to celebrate the Christmas holiday with decorations on the front lawn of City Hall. On November 15, U.S. District Judge William Smith ruled that the city’s nativity scene was not an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
9/22/2004 Phoenix Requires Porn Filters in Libraries, ACLU Up In Arms
After experiencing the tragic effects of pornography, the city of Phoenix, Arizona, has issued a ban on internet pornography in the city’s public libraries. Not surprisingly, the ACLU is planning to challenge the ban.
9/17/2004 Delaware School District Ignores ACLU Threats
Despite threats of litigation from the ACLU, one Delaware school district has made it abundantly clear that they will not surrender America’s Christian heritage without a fight.
7/7/2004 School District, ACLU Refuse Christian Free-Speech
Bowing to pressure from the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union (Connecticut chapter of the ACLU), the Windsor Locks School District reversed its decision to allow clergy to give a biblical response to claims made by a pro-homosexual group (the Stonewall Speakers) in a school-wide student assembly.
6/10/2004 ACLU Bullies District into Banning Bible Distribution
Under a looming federal lawsuit initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a suburban school district in Missouri has agreed to a settlement barring the Gideons International organization from distributing Bibles to any students who express an interest in receiving them.
6/1/2004 ACLU Forces L.A. County to Remove Cross from Seal
On June 1, L.A. County officials voted 3-2 to remove the cross from the county’s official seal following threats of a federal lawsuit from the ACLU.
5/7/2004 ACLU Threatens La Mesa City Council Over Prayer
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) continues its assault on the religious liberties of Christians. The La Mesa (Calif.) City Council has been threatened with a lawsuit for having the name of Jesus Christ used in an opening prayer.
4/16/2004 ACLU Sues School over Teachers Prayer Group
On April 12, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal lawsuit against a Bossier Parish School Board in Louisiana because school officials have permitted faculty members to participate in a teacher-led prayer group designed exclusively for adults.
No. I don’t, and I’ve explained this already.
No. What you are seeing has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has everything to do with fact that some people want Christianity to be the law of the land.
How about being able to lay punishment at the feet of all responsible for what happened there, and not just a few enlisted people?
And by your definition, the Iraq was in anti-american considering how much proproganda value it’s given the terrorists. We’ve handed them a perfect recruiting tool and training ground. Or does “emboldening the enemy” only apply to things that embress the Bush adminstration?
I’d be quite insulted by that label, because it’s not true. Any reasonable person realizes that myself, the Republican party and the current administration is not “anti-American”. (Opinions of far-left message board posters being the exception, of course.)
When any of us propose putting US soldiers and citizens in harms way for no good reason except to release a bunch of photos that don’t contain any new information and only serve to inflame opinions against the US then you can go ahead and call us whatever you like.
I see where you support your idea that one can be un-American without un-American motives, but I do not see anything you say that supports the idea that your view is the only reasonable view. I think it’s perfectly reasonable that “un-American” means “has the motive to do harm to America”, and is inapplicable elsewhere.
If I truly believe your opinion will cause harm to American, it’s perfectly OK with you that I call you un-American? You would not think it reasonably possible that I am trying to imply you have un-American motives? That would be a completely unreasonable conclusion from my accusation?