Dear Fellow cyclists... Please help
Don Porter
Robert wrote:
>
> To all understanding, kind individuals:
> My name is Robert Nekervis. Next month I am going to do a solo trip
> across the united states. Part of my reason for going on this journey is
> to bring awareness to the ACLU.
>
Please explain "bring(ing) awareness to the ACLU".
Tbird
neker...@osu.edu (Robert) wrote:
>To all understanding, kind individuals:
>My name is Robert Nekervis. Next month I am going to do a solo trip
>across the united states. Part of my reason for going on this journey is
>to bring awareness to the ACLU.
Why don't you just ride naked down Fifth Avenue during rush hour.
After you get arrested the ACLU can defend your right to free
expression, bringing "awareness to the ACLU".
Robert
In article <337EA6...@sprintmail.com>, djpo...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> Robert wrote:
> >
> > To all understanding, kind individuals:
> > My name is Robert Nekervis. Next month I am going to do a solo trip
> > across the united states. Part of my reason for going on this journey is
> > to bring awareness to the ACLU.
> >
> Please explain "bring(ing) awareness to the ACLU".
I'm going to use this trip as a publicity campaign.
#1. Get media coverage everywhere I can. Use the exposure to explain to
the American People what the ACLU is and why the organization is so
important to our country.
#2. Carry informational flyers to distribute to people as I travel across
the country.
What does biking have to do with the ACLU?
As I travel from state to state I will be unhindered by
repressive laws. I will be free to proceed through counties, states, and
cities without having to brandish one form of ID. No check points, no
problems. This bike trip represents the ubiquitous freedoms found
throughout our land.
Sorry about the vague nature of my last note. It was written late last night.
If you have any further questions please feel free to E-mail me.
Thank you
-Robert Nekervis
Robert
In article <5ln2ea$a...@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, tb...@shore.net (Tbird) wrote:
> neker...@osu.edu (Robert) wrote:
>
> >To all understanding, kind individuals:
> >My name is Robert Nekervis. Next month I am going to do a solo trip
> >across the united states. Part of my reason for going on this journey is
> >to bring awareness to the ACLU.
>
> Why don't you just ride naked down Fifth Avenue during rush hour.
> After you get arrested the ACLU can defend your right to free
> expression, bringing "awareness to the ACLU".
Thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll stick to my origional plan. :-)
-Robert
Greg Long
Het Robert,
Why don't you get the ACLU to foot the bill?
Robert
> Het Robert,
>
> Why don't you get the ACLU to foot the bill?
>
Because the ACLU is a non-profit orgaization. I am doing this to assist
them and their worthy goals. Not to use their precious funds for a summer
getaway.
Mr Long. Are you able to lend any of the greatly needed items?
E-mail me if you have any further questions.
-Robert
Tim McNamara
In article <nekervis.3-18...@ts18-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
neker...@osu.edu (Robert) wrote:
> In article <337EA6...@sprintmail.com>, djpo...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> > Please explain "bring(ing) awareness to the ACLU".
> I'm going to use this trip as a publicity campaign.
>
>
> #1. Get media coverage everywhere I can. Use the exposure to explain to
> the American People what the ACLU is and why the organization is so
> important to our country.
This may come as a surprise... but the American Civil Liberties Union is
rather well known across the country. Depending on your viewpoint it is
already famous or infamous.
> #2. Carry informational flyers to distribute to people as I travel across
> the country.
These are readily available in my area already. Are you bringing new ones?
> What does biking have to do with the ACLU?
> As I travel from state to state I will be unhindered by
> repressive laws. I will be free to proceed through counties, states, and
> cities without having to brandish one form of ID. No check points, no
> problems. This bike trip represents the ubiquitous freedoms found
> throughout our land.
I haven't noticed a whole lot of "repressive laws" here in Minnesota. Of
course, that"s often a matter of perspective. I don't find property taxes
excesively burdensome, for example, or restrictions on carrying handguns
to be repressive. Hmmm. I can't really think of anything I've wanted to
do that the law interferes with. Haven't personally needed the ACLU (but
you never know).
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but if you want to do a tour, do a
tour. But this "promoting the ACLU" is a bunch of hooey. Just ride your
bike.
--
You who choose to lead must follow,
but if you fall you will fall alone.
-Robert Hunter
George Ball
>
> What does biking have to do with the ACLU?
> As I travel from state to state I will be unhindered by
> repressive laws. I will be free to proceed through counties, states, and
> cities without having to brandish one form of ID. No check points, no
> problems. This bike trip represents the ubiquitous freedoms found
> throughout our land.
>
Gee, I travel through counties, states, and cities all the time and I've
never had to brandish any form of ID. Can't say that I've ever had to
cross a check point either.
George
Robert
To all understanding, kind individuals:
My name is Robert Nekervis. Next month I am going to do a solo trip
to bring awareness to the ACLU.
This is the first ever venture of this type for myself. I am pinching
pennies to be able to pay for food during the trip. I am very very under
supplied.
Here's how it is... It's 2:30 in the morning... I can't get these
problems out of my mind. I'm writing this note as a last ditch effort,
hoping that some kind, kind soul will choose to lend a helping hand.
Would anyone out there be willing to donate/lend any of the following
items? My appreciation would know no bounds.
Portable Air Pump, Tub Repair kit, Panniers / bike trailer or ³Bike
Luggage², ²Ridge Rest² or similar item, Cycle computer, Lightweight
portable Rain gear, Light one person tent, Gel Bike seat Miscellaneous
Emergency Equipment
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Please E-mail if you wish to become my personal hero.
-Robert
neker...@osu.edu
Barry Sanders
In article <timmcn-1805...@dialup-307.minn.net>, tim...@minn.net
(Tim McNamara) wrote:
> > I'm going to use this trip as a publicity campaign.
> This may come as a surprise... but the American Civil Liberties Union is
> rather well known across the country. Depending on your viewpoint it is
> already famous or infamous.
Its existence may be well known; but I don't think its mission, goals,
history and accomplishments are accurately represented in the media. There
is a great need for this kind of grassroots outreach, IMHO.
I confess that I'm confused about the ACLU. It seems to zig when I think
it will zag. It puzzles and intrigues me. I can't form an opinion of it;
because I don't know enough about it - except what gets filtered down to me
by the press (left-wing and otherwise). I don't think I'm alone in these
beliefs.
> > #2. Carry informational flyers to distribute
> These are readily available in my area already.
How nice for you.
Do you think the entirety of the nation (other than yourself) fully
understands the ACLU and has easy access to [unbiased] educational
materials outlining their missions, goals, history and accomplishments?
> > As I travel from state to state I will be unhindered...
> > This bike trip represents the ubiquitous freedoms found
> > throughout our land.
> I haven't noticed a whole lot of "repressive laws" here in Minnesota.
I think that's the whole idea. He's demonstrating something that we all
take for granted: The freedom to travel unhindered across a vast and
culturally diverse country. Maybe that doesn't seem amazing to you; but
it's definitely symbolic. I do question how many people will 'get it'; as
these responses seem to demonstrate.
> Hmmm. I can't really think of anything I've wanted to
> do that the law interferes with.
That's right. Just do as you're told, like everyone else. Express your
individualism within the confines of social acceptability. Groovy!
> Haven't personally needed the ACLU (but you never know).
Exactly.
> this "promoting the ACLU" is a bunch of hooey.
What's wrong with it? Can't you let someone have a dream without stomping
on it?
Frankly, I'm surprised at the negative tone on this group. I guess I had
assumed that cyclists were more open minded than these responses would
indicate.
Good luck to you, Robert.
Barry Sanders
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <nekervis.3-18...@ts18-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
>What does biking have to do with the ACLU?
> As I travel from state to state I will be unhindered by
>repressive laws. I will be free to proceed through counties, states, and
>cities without having to brandish one form of ID. No check points, no
>problems. This bike trip represents the ubiquitous freedoms found
>throughout our land.
Brought to you by the founding fathers and many lives of people who
have given theirs to protect this country in a 200 year history.
NOT given by the ACLU and their belief that the very people who founded
this country are criminals in need of punishment.
standupsteve
> > >
> > > To all understanding, kind individuals:
> > > My name is Robert Nekervis. Next month I am going to do a solo trip
> > > across the united states. Part of my reason for going on this journey is
> > > to bring awareness to the ACLU.
> > >
A day doesn't go by that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is
not in the news or in some other way in the public eye. The good they do
is indeed noted, even if it is, at times, on a level of "knee-jerk
reactionism". Perhaps they would be more functional with less public
awareness.
Robert
>
> Brought to you by the founding fathers and many lives of people who
> have given theirs to protect this country in a 200 year history.
>
> NOT given by the ACLU and their belief that the very people who founded
> this country are criminals in need of punishment.
Interesting, I never knew the ACLU had a policy to arrest dead people.
Please tell me more.
Robert
> Yeh, Robert, I hope you really put the spotlight on those jerks.
> It's time that most of what they do is more closely observed by
> the citizens of this country.
Why are they jerks? Do you have something against the bill of rights?
Michael K. Randall
Robert wrote:
>
> Because the ACLU is a non-profit orgaization. I am doing this to assist
> them and their worthy goals. Not to use their precious funds for a summer
> getaway.
And exactly WHOSE precious funds will you be using for your summer
getaway?
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts20-6.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
>Why are they jerks? Do you have something against the bill of rights?
Contrary to your ideas about the ACLU they only support causes and
people that conform to their own subjective and ultra-liberal views.
The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the minority from the majority
but the ACLU often seems to interpret that as meaning protecting
criminals from law abiding citizens.
Most of the good that the ACLU has done has been fall out from
cases that most people would consider troubling to say the least.
hau...@mbi.org
In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts15-2.homenet.ohio-state.edu> neker...@osu.edu (Robert) writes:
>From: neker...@osu.edu (Robert)
>Subject: Re: Dear Fellow cyclists... Please help
>Date: 19 May 1997 19:04:06 GMT
>I've already received threats and demeaning letters associating me with
>the communist party. All because of my love for this country and it's
>unique freedoms. Obviously the ACLU is misunderstood by a great number of
>people.
Not a great number - just you.
>> I don't mean to rain on your parade, but if you want to do a tour, do a
>> tour. But this "promoting the ACLU" is a bunch of hooey. Just ride your
>> bike.
>The "promoting the ACLU" is a dream of mine that I have been working on
>feaverishly for over a year now.
When are you scheduled to get your degree, Robert? Your constant
misspellings and misuse of words leads me to think you're an eighth-grader.
But perhaps you're just typing and posting real quickly.
>So... Could I ask for your help with this great endeavor?
Great endeavor? How so? I'm sorry to be so cynical, Robert, but I suspect
that anyone who has such high praise for the ACLU has motives and ideas quite
a bit different from mine.
>Individuals can and will change the world
Sometimes, but.....I suspect that most of the real ACLU fans don't give a hoot
about cyclists, and in fact most probably think they're nuts. Your
assumption that those who have benefitted from the ACLU's work must also
especially savor other freedoms, such as cycling, is a big one. In most
cases, their real concern is 'what's in it for ME?'
Rich
Robert
>
> Gee, I travel through counties, states, and cities all the time and I've
> never had to brandish any form of ID. Can't say that I've ever had to
> cross a check point either.
>
> George
That's the point.
-Robert
Robert
> >> I don't mean to rain on your parade, but if you want to do a tour, do a
> >> tour. But this "promoting the ACLU" is a bunch of hooey. Just ride your
> >> bike.
>
> >The "promoting the ACLU" is a dream of mine that I have been working on
> >feaverishly for over a year now.
> When are you scheduled to get your degree, Robert? Your constant
> misspellings and misuse of words leads me to think you're an eighth-grader.
> But perhaps you're just typing and posting real quickly.
Are personal attacks really necessary? I'm sorry if my typing skills are
not up to your standards.
> >So... Could I ask for your help with this great endeavor?
>
>
> Great endeavor? How so? I'm sorry to be so cynical, Robert, but I suspect
> that anyone who has such high praise for the ACLU has motives and ideas quite
> a bit different from mine.
Yes... My ideas are of the nature that it is rude to attack people
personally and my motives are such that I try to improve the world in my
own way.
> >Individuals can and will change the world
>
> Sometimes, but.....I suspect that most of the real ACLU fans don't give
a hoot
> about cyclists, and in fact most probably think they're nuts.
Where do you get this information? I know a great number of people who
support the ACLU and who actively bike.
>...In most
> cases, their real concern is 'what's in it for ME?'
>
> Rich
You obviously have a very different outlook on life. I can respect that.
Just don't expect me or others to embrace your "Ayn Rand" philosophy.
-Robert
Robert
In article <tomkEAG...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:
> In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts20-6.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
> Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Why are they jerks? Do you have something against the bill of rights?
>
> Contrary to your ideas about the ACLU they only support causes and
> people that conform to their own subjective and ultra-liberal views.
Freedom of Speech and Religion is an ultra-liberal view?
Protection against unreasonable search and seizure is an ultra-liberal view?
I suppose that the Bill of Rights is an ultra-liberal document.
> The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the minority from the majority
> but the ACLU often seems to interpret that as meaning protecting
> criminals from law abiding citizens.
Care to site an example?
Tim McNamara
In article <tomkEAF...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:
> In article <nekervis.3-18...@ts15-1.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
> Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >My name is Robert Nekervis. Next month I am going to do a solo trip
> >across the united states. Part of my reason for going on this journey is
> >to bring awareness to the ACLU.
>
> Yeh, Robert, I hope you really put the spotlight on those jerks.
> It's time that most of what they do is more closely observed by
> the citizens of this country.
You mean like defending the freedom of the press to report on the illegal
activities of government officials, helping to enforce the Freedom of
Information Act, protecting freedom of expression, protecting rights of
access to information through the Internet, and things like that? Or are
you just referring to the ACLU actions that don't conform to your
knee-jerk reactionary conservative viewpoint?
--
What do you want me to do, to do for you while you're sleeping?
Then please don't be surprised when you find me dreaming too.
-Robert Hunter
Gregory S. Croon
Robert wrote:
>
> To all understanding, kind individuals:
> across the united states. Part of my reason for going on this journey is
> to bring awareness to the ACLU.
>
> pennies to be able to pay for food during the trip. I am very very under
> supplied.
>
> Here's how it is... It's 2:30 in the morning... I can't get these
> problems out of my mind. I'm writing this note as a last ditch effort,
> hoping that some kind, kind soul will choose to lend a helping hand.
>
> Would anyone out there be willing to donate/lend any of the following
> items? My appreciation would know no bounds.
>
> Portable Air Pump, Tub Repair kit, Panniers / bike trailer or ³Bike
> Luggage², ²Ridge Rest² or similar item, Cycle computer, Lightweight
> portable Rain gear, Light one person tent, Gel Bike seat Miscellaneous
> Emergency Equipment
>
> This is just the tip of the iceberg.
>
> Please E-mail if you wish to become my personal hero.
>
> -Robert
> neker...@osu.edu
are mooching and begging. Wait to you get out of school and see half of
your earnings go to taxes (state, federal, property, county, city,
vehicles, ...) You will then you will know what you really ought to be
riding for. Of course, you seem to have all the makings of a fine
tenured professor. Or by chance, are we going to join the legal
profession? Good luck.
--
Gregory S. Croon, Engineer, Vienna, VA USA gre...@erols.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"He looked at the granite, To be cut, he thought and made into
walls. He looked at a tree. To be split and made into rafters. He
looked at a streak of rust on a stone and thought of iron ore under
the ground. These rocks are here for me; waiting to be split,
pounded, reborn, waiting for the shape my hands will give them."
-Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Science not Sorcery ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steven L. Sheffield
In article <tomkEAG...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:
> In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts20-6.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
> Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Why are they jerks? Do you have something against the bill of rights?
>
> Contrary to your ideas about the ACLU they only support causes and
> people that conform to their own subjective and ultra-liberal views.
Like defending the First Amendment so that not only due the
ultra-liberals have the right to burn the flag to protest their
government, but also so that ultra-conservative/right-wing
groups (like the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party) have the
right to demonstrate.
> The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the minority from the majority
> but the ACLU often seems to interpret that as meaning protecting
> criminals from law abiding citizens.
'Tis better that a guilty man go free, than an innocent man
spend time in jail or die for a crime he didn't commit. 'Tis
better that a guilty man go free than chance having our rights
(as law-abiding citizens) restricted by an increasingly oppressive
government.
> Most of the good that the ACLU has done has been fall out from
> cases that most people would consider troubling to say the least.
This is true. But keep in mind that even Thomas Jefferson said,
"Though I may hate what you say, I will defend to the death your
right to say it."
The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
In Orwell's universe, there was very little crime and what there
was was dealt with in a swift manner ... but the citizen's rights
to even think were non-existent.
But, since this thread has nothing to do with bicycling anymore,
let's either move it to private e-mail or to a more appropriate
newsgroup.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steven L. Sheffield (BOB #1765/IBOB #3) Disclaimer? What's that? |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ste...@veloworks.com / http://www.veloworks.com/rivendell |
| Voice: +1 415 296-9893 / Fax: +1 415 274-3259 / Ride yer bike! |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Thomas H. Kunich
>My name is Robert Nekervis. Next month I am going to do a solo trip
>across the united states. Part of my reason for going on this journey is
>to bring awareness to the ACLU.
Yeh, Robert, I hope you really put the spotlight on those jerks.
Thomas H. Kunich
>Why don't you just ride naked down Fifth Avenue during rush hour.
>After you get arrested the ACLU can defend your right to free
>expression, bringing "awareness to the ACLU".
Or have sex with animals in Times Square. The ACLU would gladly defend
you on Constitutional grounds while people who really need support
would be left to rot in jail.
Scooby
Hey wait a minute...
We can't have all of you riding your bikes here and there without
checkpoints. How will you know what country your entering?
-S
Robert
In article <337f66e...@news.actrix.gen.nz>, da...@mtber.dvl.co.nz wrote:
> On 18 May 1997 16:00:35 GMT, neker...@osu.edu (Robert) wrote:
>
> > #1. Get media coverage everywhere I can. Use the exposure to explain to
> > the American People what the ACLU is and why the organization is so
> > important to our country.
>
> What is the ACLU?
The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.
It is an organization who's soul purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights.
The fundamental principles of civil rights affording to all American
Citizens.
> > What does biking have to do with the ACLU?
> > As I travel from state to state I will be unhindered by
> > repressive laws. I will be free to proceed through counties, states, and
> > cities without having to brandish one form of ID. No check points, no
> > problems. This bike trip represents the ubiquitous freedoms found
> > throughout our land.
>
> So. What does biking have to do with the ACLU?
It's a representation of the ubiquitous freedoms throughout the USA.
> Dan Langille
> DVL Software Limited - Wellington, New Zealand
> to reply, please remove mtber from the address
-Robert Nekervis
Ohio State University
Undergrad
Communication
Business
Rick Arnoldy
>==========Barry Sanders, 5/18/97==========
<Stuff deleted about ACLU>
>
>Frankly, I'm surprised at the negative tone on this group. I
guess I had
>assumed that cyclists were more open minded than these responses would
>indicate.
>
>Good luck to you, Robert.
>
>Barry Sanders
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Happens every time
politics comes up.
A liberal who disagrees with a conservative position is
championing a cause.
A conservative who disagrees with a liberal position is "closed minded."
Robert
untry.
>
> This may come as a surprise... but the American Civil Liberties Union is
> rather well known across the country. Depending on your viewpoint it is
> already famous or infamous.
I've already received threats and demeaning letters associating me with
the communist party. All because of my love for this country and it's
unique freedoms. Obviously the ACLU is misunderstood by a great number of
people.
> > #2. Carry informational flyers to distribute to people as I travel across
> > the country.
>
> These are readily available in my area already. Are you bringing new ones?
>
Actually yes.
> Haven't personally needed the ACLU (BUT YOU NEVER KNOW).
I totally agree. Thanks for summing it all up.
> I don't mean to rain on your parade, but if you want to do a tour, do a
> tour. But this "promoting the ACLU" is a bunch of hooey. Just ride your
> bike.
The "promoting the ACLU" is a dream of mine that I have been working on
feaverishly for over a year now.
So... Could I ask for your help with this great endeavor?
> You who choose to lead must follow,
> but if you fall you will fall alone.
>
> -Robert Hunter
Individuals can and will change the world
-Robert
Gary Smiley
Robert wrote:
>
> > >> I don't mean to rain on your parade, but if you want to do a tour, do a
> > >> tour. But this "promoting the ACLU" is a bunch of hooey. Just ride your
> > >> bike.
> >
> > >The "promoting the ACLU" is a dream of mine that I have been working on
> > >feaverishly for over a year now.
>
> > misspellings and misuse of words leads me to think you're an eighth-grader.
> > But perhaps you're just typing and posting real quickly.
>
> Are personal attacks really necessary? I'm sorry if my typing skills are
> not up to your standards.
>
> >
> >
> > that anyone who has such high praise for the ACLU has motives and ideas quite
> > a bit different from mine.
>
> Yes... My ideas are of the nature that it is rude to attack people
> personally and my motives are such that I try to improve the world in my
> own way.
>
> >
> a hoot
> > about cyclists, and in fact most probably think they're nuts.
>
> Where do you get this information? I know a great number of people who
> support the ACLU and who actively bike.
>
> >...In most
> > cases, their real concern is 'what's in it for ME?'
> >
> > Rich
>
> You obviously have a very different outlook on life. I can respect that.
> Just don't expect me or others to embrace your "Ayn Rand" philosophy.
>
> -Robert
I can't believe what people are saying. If someone wanted to go on an
AIDS ride, or cancer research ride, would they be catching all this
flack? If you believe in something, then go for it! You are a true
freedom rider!
Sheldon Brown
Barry Sanders asked:
> Do you think the entirety of the nation...has easy access to [unbiased] educational
> materials outlining their missions, goals, history and accomplishments?
While I generally support and contribute to the ACLU, I don't believe
the intent was to distribute _unbiased_ educational materials, but
rather pamphlets proselytizing the ACLU.
Sheldon "On Your Left" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
+-----------------------------------------------+
| A government that robs Peter to pay Paul |
| can always depend upon the support of Paul. |
| --George Bernard Shaw |
+-----------------------------------------------+
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biz/hub/
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
(617) 244-1040 FAX 244-1041
Robert
>I will send you a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to read while you
>are mooching and begging.
Thanks! I may run out of toilet paper along the way.
John Gault and the gang can kiss my ass... Literally!
-Robert
David Wiesenhahn
> I haven't noticed a whole lot of "repressive laws" here in Minnesota. Of
> course, that"s often a matter of perspective. I don't find property taxes
> excesively burdensome, for example, or restrictions on carrying handguns
> to be repressive.
Even if you did find the handgun laws repressive, the ACLU wouldn't help
you: they generally don't believe that the 2nd Amendment is as important as
the others.
Hueser
Robert wrote:
>
>>I will send you a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to read
>>while you are mooching and begging.
>
> Thanks! I may run out of toilet paper along the way.
Is this what liberals do instead of burning books?
> John Gault and the gang can kiss my ass... Literally!
Sounds rather oppressive.
hau...@mbi.org
In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts8-12.homenet.ohio-state.edu> neker...@osu.edu (Robert) writes:
>From: neker...@osu.edu (Robert)
>Subject: Re: Dear Fellow cyclists... Please help
>> When are you scheduled to get your degree, Robert? Your constant
>> misspellings and misuse of words leads me to think you're an eighth-grader.
>> But perhaps you're just typing and posting real quickly.
>Are personal attacks really necessary? I'm sorry if my typing skills are
>not up to your standards.
Actually, it was more of an attack on your university, high school, and grade
school. Typing skills? - sorry, but your errors are clearly grammar,
spelling, and word use problems.
>> >So... Could I ask for your help with this great endeavor?
>>
>> Great endeavor? How so? I'm sorry to be so cynical, Robert, but I suspect
>> that anyone who has such high praise for the ACLU has motives and ideas quite
>> a bit different from mine.
>Yes... My ideas are of the nature that it is rude to attack people
>personally and my motives are such that I try to improve the world in my
>own way.
No, actually I find it pathetic and very disheartening that our universities
are graduating people who make such very basic errors, and also are so naive
to think that the ACLU is such a wonderful group.
>> >Individuals can and will change the world
>>
>> Sometimes, but.....I suspect that most of the real ACLU fans don't give
>a hoot
>> about cyclists, and in fact most probably think they're nuts.
>Where do you get this information? I know a great number of people who
>support the ACLU and who actively bike.
Even if it really is a 'great' number, it's still a tiny percentage. I stand
by my suspicion.
>>...In most
>> cases, their real concern is 'what's in it for ME?'
>>
>You obviously have a very different outlook on life. I can respect that.
>Just don't expect me or others to embrace your "Ayn Rand" philosophy.
Now you're making a huge and completely unfounded assumption, which is, I
suppose, a typical ultra-liberal trait. So, are you denying that most ACLU
activities are, in the end, self-serving?
Rich
Eric G. Vann
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
>
> Like defending the First Amendment so that not only due the
> ultra-liberals have the right to burn the flag to protest their
> government, but also so that ultra-conservative/right-wing
> groups (like the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party) have the
> right to demonstrate.
>
Huh?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Geoffrey Vann va...@cig.mot.com phone: (847) 632-2240
Enabling Technologies Motorola CIG
Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hueser
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
>
>In article <tomkEAG...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
>wrote:
>>people that conform to their own subjective and ultra-liberal views.
>Like defending the First Amendment so that not only due the
>ultra-liberals have the right to burn the flag to protest their
>government, but also so that ultra-conservative/right-wing
>groups (like the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party) have the
>right to demonstrate.
So we have the aclu to thank for that.
>>The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the minority from the majority
>>but the ACLU often seems to interpret that as meaning protecting
>>criminals from law abiding citizens.
>'Tis better that a guilty man go free, than an innocent man
>spend time in jail or die for a crime he didn't commit. 'Tis
>better that a guilty man go free than chance having our rights
>(as law-abiding citizens) restricted by an increasingly oppressive
>government.
Or a better motto for the aclu is "Tis better that a guilty man go free
and kill an innocent man and his family, than pay for his original
crime." or "Tis better for a guilty man to oppress the innocent, than
have a guilty man restricted by law-abiding citizens."
Why should the government's actions absolve a guilty mans's deeds
against another individual. I do not see the government losing or being
restricted, only the person who was the original victim.
>The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
>given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
>I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
There are restrictions to free speech and expression everywhere. Try
yelling "Fire!" in the movie theater, "Bomb!" in the airport. Do you
want to remove those resrictions?
Why should I be forced to listen or observe? Doesn't this encroach on
my rights?
>But, since this thread has nothing to do with bicycling anymore,
>let's either move it to private e-mail or to a more appropriate
>newsgroup.
That didn't stop your comment, did it? Is this a restriction on free
speech?
Bart Blair
You wrote:
>
>>I will send you a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to read while
you
>>are mooching and begging.
>
>
>Thanks! I may run out of toilet paper along the way.
>
>
>
>
Hey, I am also planning a tour this summer. Actually, it will be a
bunch of tours. However, they will be short tours that will leave my
house several times a week and then return to my house at night. Why
will these to
urs be so short??? BECAUSE I HAVE TO WORK TO PAY FOR THEM!!! Maybe
this is something that you should try! I don't know your background,
(ie student, gainfully employed, etc) but I go out and earn what you
need, don't a
sk me to support your goals in the shroud of "something better" for the
rest of the country.
Good luck in your tour, but make it your tour, not our tour.
Bartman
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <stevens-1905...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
Steven L. Sheffield <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
>Like defending the First Amendment so that not only due the
>ultra-liberals have the right to burn the flag to protest their
>government, but also so that ultra-conservative/right-wing
>groups (like the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party) have the
>right to demonstrate.
Ultra-Conservative...Nazi Party... I hate to point this out to
you but the Nazi's are _socialists_. If you look it up you will
find that Nazi is National Socialist Party. Ultra-conservative
huh?
If you think that the ACLU care one drop about whether the
Constitution is in effect or not just try getting them to
support defending a Nazi. Surprise, all of a sudden they
can't find a Constitutional issue in the case.
>This is true. But keep in mind that even Thomas Jefferson said,
>"Though I may hate what you say, I will defend to the death your
>right to say it."
So you think that Thomas Jefferson would defend child molesters?
>The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
>given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
>I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
My people couldn't go to public schools so I know very well about the
slippery slope. I also know that the weakness of the system is that
it can only stand so much distortion. I'm sorry to say that true
criminals do not deserve to do anything that they can get away with
simply because a slick lawyer can talk a jury into believing that.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <dwiesenhahn-ya02408...@news.ida.org>,
David Wiesenhahn <dwies...@ida.org> wrote:
>
>Even if you did find the handgun laws repressive, the ACLU wouldn't help
>you: they generally don't believe that the 2nd Amendment is as important as
>the others.
The values of the ACLU are the values of a bunch of rich or rich wannabee
jewish lawyers. Jewish in the social sense, not the religious sense
since the Jewish establishment has become so ultra-liberal that they
cannot recognize that they support the very people that killed so
many of their people.
Orthodox Jews, on the other hand know what the heck they're about.
Ted and Jennifer Nichols-Payne
Okay, I've read every damn one of these posts in this thread, and it's
been pretty interesting. Some of you people have to chill.
The ACLU doesn't stand for morality, it stands for principles - the
principles set forth in the constitution of the USA.
Principles like your right to burn the flag as a method of demonstration
or getting your point across... never mind that burning the Stars and
Stripes is a redundant act, the freedom of speech you are exercising is
symbolized by the very flag you are burning, so in effect you are burning
your own freedom... but hey, it's your right to be as stupid as you want.
Principles like defending the KKK's right to demonstrate, because their
rights to speech and freedom are just as strong as the rest of us whose
heads aren't stuck firmly up our asses.
The ACLU has done some stupid shit, but so has the NRA, and the Congress,
and the GOP, and the DNC, and the Red Cross, and the Disney company, and
that guy that cut me off on the highway... funny how people are always
screwing up. Funny how there are people from all walks of life -
conservative and liberal - that screw up. And are corrupt.
But, you know, there are also an awful lot of people that disagree with
you - no matter who you are or what you believe - that are good people,
that have good hearts, that just happen to not suscribe to your point of
view. Now, is that okay with you? Can you live with that?
Now let's get to the point of all this that really pisses me off...
> Portable Air Pump, Tub Repair kit, Panniers / bike trailer or ³Bike
> Luggage², ²Ridge Rest² or similar item, Cycle computer, Lightweight
> portable Rain gear, Light one person tent, Gel Bike seat Miscellaneous
> Emergency Equipment
>
> This is just the tip of the iceberg.
>
You need this much crap? You've got to be kidding! I assume you own a
bike, and nothing else. My recommendation would be to put off your ride
an extra month or two, work a second job and buy some of this stuff
yourself. Begging doesn't become you.
Ted
Tim McNamara
> Now you're making a huge and completely unfounded assumption, which is, I
> suppose, a typical ultra-liberal trait. So, are you denying that most ACLU
> activities are, in the end, self-serving?
And the conservatives don't make huge and completely unfounded
assumptions? And most conservative activities are not self serving?
Gimme a break, human nature occurs on both sides of the fence. The
conservatives want to deny me my right to live my life as I choose just as
much as the liberals. Both groups should get off our backs!
And this has noting to do with bicycling as Steven Sheffield pointed out
and should be moved to alt.political.rants
Tim
--
One pane of glass in the window. No one is complaining, though,
come in and shut the door. Faded is the crimson of the ribbons
that she wore, and it's strange how no one comes round any more.
-Robert Hunter
hau...@mbi.org
In article <timmcn-2005...@dialup-298.minn.net> tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) writes:
>From: tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara)
>Subject: Re: Dear Fellow cyclists... Please help
>In article <haubert.41...@mbi.org>, hau...@mbi.org wrote:
>> Now you're making a huge and completely unfounded assumption, which is, I
>> suppose, a typical ultra-liberal trait. So, are you denying that most ACLU
>> activities are, in the end, self-serving?
Tim writes:
>And the conservatives don't make huge and completely unfounded
>assumptions? And most conservative activities are not self serving?
Thanks for proving my point, Tim! Your assumption that I am expressing
conservative views is erroneous.
>Gimme a break, human nature occurs on both sides of the fence. The
>conservatives want to deny me my right to live my life as I choose just as
>much as the liberals. Both groups should get off our backs!
Actually, I agree - to a point. The trouble here is that most ACLU activities
are NOT mildly liberal - they are extreme; therefore, most people don't agree
with them. This brings up another tragic irony - majority rules is one of the
most basic concepts of democracy - yet the ACLU plays dictator by ignoring
the wishes of the majority.
Rich
The Serbinator
Robert wrote:
>
> >
> > Brought to you by the founding fathers and many lives of people who
> > have given theirs to protect this country in a 200 year history.
> >
> > NOT given by the ACLU and their belief that the very people who founded
> > this country are criminals in need of punishment.
>
> Interesting, I never knew the ACLU had a policy to arrest dead people.
>
> Please tell me more.
Rob, this childish post of yours demeans your entire argument and likens
you to Haubert. DON'T resort to trivialities and such to get defend your
points....
The Serbinator
Thank you... That's what *I* was gonna post, but you beat me to it.
<wink>
Serb
Gregory S. Croon
Robert wrote:
>
> >I will send you a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to read while you
> >are mooching and begging.
>
> Thanks! I may run out of toilet paper along the way.
>
> John Gault and the gang can kiss my ass... Literally!
>
> -Robert
Q: How do you know when you have won against a collectivist in an
argument?
A: When they resort to insults and arguments by intimidation.
Seriously. Robert, it may come as a surprise, but I once thought much
like you. I can only tell you that your education will only begin after
you get away from those ivy covered professors in ivy covered halls. I
wish you the best but you have a lot of painful lessons ahead of you in
life. The most important lesson is that a select group of elitist's
like the ACLU do not know what is in your interest.
If you choose to use a book like Atlas Shrugged as toilet paper, it is
not the book you denigrate, but yourself. You may not like what she has
to say, but it does not change the truth of her statements. If you
think her words are worthless, just listen to Gephardt and his "shared
sacrifice." Rand warned us and he demonstrates to us the same evil that
resulted in millions to be "sacrficed" for the benfit of king, state,
tribe, race, prolitariate, etc. It is the same sacrifice preached by
the ACLU and it is why I do not look upon them as the great defenders of
my freedom.
Don't be upset. You expected people to give you things because you told
us "you needed it." Your need is not a mortgage on me or anyone else.
Best of luck but don't come to me for the unearned. I find your cause
worthless and not in my self interest. You are free to choose your
path, but "Get the hell out of my way." When you can look upon these
words and rise above the emotion and into logic, you will have only
begun your true education.
--
Gregory S. Croon, Engineer, Vienna, VA USA gre...@erols.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Capitalism does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and
achievement, here, on earth - capitalism does not tell men to serve and
sacrifice, but to produce and profit - capitalism does not preach
passivity, humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence,
self-reliance - and, above all, capitalism does not permit anyone to
take the unearned" - Ayn Rand
Mark Atanovich
> Actually, I agree - to a point. The trouble here is that most ACLU activities
> are NOT mildly liberal - they are extreme; therefore, most people don't agree
> with them. This brings up another tragic irony - majority rules is one of the
> most basic concepts of democracy - yet the ACLU plays dictator by ignoring
> the wishes of the majority.
>
> Rich
>
The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee certain rights to all
individuals, not just those in the majority. Take flag burning as an
example. Most Americans, myself included, find it appalling but most
would agree that it is protected as freedom of expression. There are
those who advocate laws banning flag burning. I find it ironic that
those laws would do more to deface the flag than any form of physical
mutilation.
Mark_Atano...@REMOVEemail.sps.mot.com
Remove "REMOVE"
Steven L. Sheffield
> Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> >
> >In article <tomkEAG...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
> >wrote:
> >>Contrary to your ideas about the ACLU they only support causes and
> >>people that conform to their own subjective and ultra-liberal views.
>
> >Like defending the First Amendment so that not only due the
> >ultra-liberals have the right to burn the flag to protest their
> >government, but also so that ultra-conservative/right-wing
> >groups (like the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party) have the
> >right to demonstrate.
>
> So we have the aclu to thank for that.
Thankfully, yes.
That way, I can say "The United States Government sucks!" without
fear of reprisal from my government.
That way, I can demonstrate for or against abortion rights without
fear of reprisal from my government.
That way, I'm assured of protection against being arrested and
held without bail without being charged for a crime.
> >>The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the minority from the majority
> >>but the ACLU often seems to interpret that as meaning protecting
> >>criminals from law abiding citizens.
>
> >'Tis better that a guilty man go free, than an innocent man
> >spend time in jail or die for a crime he didn't commit. 'Tis
> >better that a guilty man go free than chance having our rights
> >(as law-abiding citizens) restricted by an increasingly oppressive
> >government.
>
> Or a better motto for the aclu is "Tis better that a guilty man go free
> and kill an innocent man and his family, than pay for his original
> crime." or "Tis better for a guilty man to oppress the innocent, than
> have a guilty man restricted by law-abiding citizens."
>
> Why should the government's actions absolve a guilty mans's deeds
> against another individual. I do not see the government losing or being
> restricted, only the person who was the original victim.
The laws aren't designed to protect the guilty, they're designed
to protect the innocent. Were you aware that 24 people have been
executed in the United States for crimes they did NOT commit, for
which they were later exonerated?
Death is irreversible. I would rather see a guilty man go free
than risk an innocent man be wrongfully executed. If the government
did it's job correctly to begin with, then the criminal would not
have been allowed to go free.
But I guess you'd rather have lived during the era of McCarthyism,
when the mere allegation that one's views were left of center was
enough to cause people to lose their jobs.
The ACLU also takes on cases in which people have been discriminated
against. The ACLU is partially responsible for ensuring that you
can't get fired if you get AIDS, if you are a member of a minority,
if you are injured on the job, etc.
> >The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
> >given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
> >I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
>
> There are restrictions to free speech and expression everywhere. Try
> yelling "Fire!" in the movie theater, "Bomb!" in the airport. Do you
> want to remove those resrictions?
>
> Why should I be forced to listen or observe? Doesn't this encroach on
> my rights?
You're not being forced to listen or observe. You can change the
channel. You can walk away from a street demonstration. You can
choose to vote with your dollars that you don't support a particular
author, musician, or cause. You have the choice, thanks to the ACLU.
> >But, since this thread has nothing to do with bicycling anymore,
> >let's either move it to private e-mail or to a more appropriate
> >newsgroup.
>
> That didn't stop your comment, did it? Is this a restriction on free
> speech?
No, merely a suggestion ...
Steven L. Sheffield
In article <tomkEAH...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:
> In article <stevens-1905...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
> Steven L. Sheffield <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
>
> >Like defending the First Amendment so that not only due the
> >ultra-liberals have the right to burn the flag to protest their
> >government, but also so that ultra-conservative/right-wing
> >groups (like the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party) have the
> >right to demonstrate.
>
> Ultra-Conservative...Nazi Party... I hate to point this out to
> you but the Nazi's are _socialists_. If you look it up you will
> find that Nazi is National Socialist Party. Ultra-conservative
> huh?
Tom, this argument is a boondoggle. The emphasis in the
Nationalsozialistsche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP) or Nazi
party was on Nationalism (a characteristic of the right), and
not Socialism. In fact, the Nazi party was diametrically
opposed to the Communist Party.
The Nazi Party is quite correctly placed in the authoritarian
or totalitarian right ... as are the Ku Klux Klan the Fascist
Party.
Perhaps ultra-conservative is the wrong term ... but my point
is the same. The ACLU protects the right as well as the left.
> If you think that the ACLU care one drop about whether the
> Constitution is in effect or not just try getting them to
> support defending a Nazi. Surprise, all of a sudden they
> can't find a Constitutional issue in the case.
The ACLU HAS defended the American Nazi Party (Smith v. Collin,
439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291 [1978]), during their attempts to
demonstrate in the heavily Jewish-populated Skokie, IL.
Of the ~70,000 residents, over 40,000 were Jewish, and between
5-7000 were survivors of the Holocaust. Skokie passed 3 laws
forbidding the display of the swastika or demonstrations by
those in military style uniforms, among other restrictions.
The ACLU defended the Nazi's right to demonstrate on First
Amendment grounds. They suffered for it, as well, experiencing
the loss of several thousand members, and nearly falling into
financial ruin.
Another boondoggle argument.
> >This is true. But keep in mind that even Thomas Jefferson said,
> >"Though I may hate what you say, I will defend to the death your
> >right to say it."
>
> So you think that Thomas Jefferson would defend child molesters?
Child molesters should be strung up by their balls. But in
these times, a person's reputation and life can be destroyed
simply by the allegation they have molested someone, regardless
of whether or not the allegation is true ... and it's almost
impossible to defend oneself against such an allegation, for
there will always be people who will be convinced forever more
that you are guilty, in spite of the absence of any evidence.
> >The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
> >given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
> >I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
>
> My people couldn't go to public schools so I know very well about the
> slippery slope. I also know that the weakness of the system is that
> it can only stand so much distortion. I'm sorry to say that true
> criminals do not deserve to do anything that they can get away with
> simply because a slick lawyer can talk a jury into believing that.
I agree. They don't deserve it. The system isn't perfect. But
restricting it further will not make it any better ... in the long
run, it will make it worse (cf. the recent San Francisco case in
which a man was sent to prison for life for stealing a slice of
pizza, because it was his "third strike").
Steven L. Sheffield
In article <5lt0ov$j...@clarknet.clark.net>, k...@clark.net (Keith Lynch) wrote:
> In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts15-2.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
> Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
> > The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.
> > It is an organization who's soul purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights.
>
> Except for the 2nd amendment, of course.
God forbid that we have a "well-regulated Militia" ... let's allow
any schmuck who can afford it to buy a gun.
Gun-control laws do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of
law-abiding citizens ... so what if you have to wait a week? Do
you really need to shoot something right now?
But they MAY make it more difficult for a would-be criminal to
get his hands on one.
Steven L. Sheffield
> Actually, I agree - to a point. The trouble here is that most ACLU
activities
> are NOT mildly liberal - they are extreme; therefore, most people don't agree
> with them. This brings up another tragic irony - majority rules is one
of the
> most basic concepts of democracy - yet the ACLU plays dictator by ignoring
> the wishes of the majority.
Alexis de Tocqueville warned against the tyranny of the majority. In
a traditional tyranny (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia), the oppressive
force can be visualized. In a tyranny of the majority, there is no
face on the source of the oppression, but it is there nonetheless ...
it's called public opinion, which reduces every issue to its lowest
common denominator, allowing people to influenced by the media, which
panders to them.
Far too often, people make up their minds and vote on issues without
understanding them, simply because public opinion (which is very
fickle) tells them they should.
Democracy is not simply about majority rule ... but once again
we're being presented with specious arguments. The United States
is not a democracy. It's a Republic. We do not decide how we
are ruled. We are "represented" by a very small number of people
who decide how we are ruled. We are not a majoritarian society.
There are really only 563 people who really rule us, these being
teh 453 members of the House, the 100 members of the Senate, the
President, and the 9 members of the Supreme Court. Our fate is
ultimately in THEIR hands ... not our own.
Classic "Liberalism" (in the ideological sense rather than the
more modern left-wing sense) insists that the rights of the
minority be protected. This is why we have a President who can
veto legislation passed by Congress and a Supreme Court that can
overturn laws signed by the President.
Keith Lynch
In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts15-2.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
> The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.
> It is an organization who's soul purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights.
Except for the 2nd amendment, of course.
--
Keith Lynch, k...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I boycott all spammers.
i...@mosquito.com
Ok, enough of this shit. This has gone beyond the scope of these news groups.
Please move this to a more appropriate group like alt.bullshit. This is cross
posted to 6 groups and is just wasting bandwidth.
hau...@mbi.org
In article <3381FF...@aol.com> The Serbinator <serbi...@aol.com> writes:
>From: The Serbinator <serbi...@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: Dear Fellow cyclists... Please help
I'm sure you meant that with the best of intentions, "Serb"! But in fact,
Robert would have to do far, far better to be even remotely comparable to me.
Rich
Just say sounds like serb has been reading posts VERY selectively
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5lt0ov$j...@clarknet.clark.net>, Keith Lynch <k...@clark.net> wrote:
>In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts15-2.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
>Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
>> The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.
>> It is an organization who's soul purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights.
>
>Except for the 2nd amendment, of course.
Actually they are so selective that it is really difficult to tell
what they are for or against. The ACLU pushes and agenda under the
guise of supporting the Constitution.
Right now the agenda seems that they are seeking superior rights for
those who had ancestors with inferior rights. Equality doesn't seem to
enter their thinking. Only revenge.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <stevens-2005...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
Steven L. Sheffield <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
>God forbid that we have a "well-regulated Militia" ... let's allow
>any schmuck who can afford it to buy a gun.
I suggest you read the federalist papers to see what the heck the
framers of the Constitution were really thinking of. And by the
way Steven, the Constitution DOES NOT suggest that the use of guns
be limited to a well-regulated militia. The wording of the first
and third ammendments clearly shows the use of the words intends
to mean that people who own and use guns are better suited for militias
than people that haven't a clue what a gun is.
>Gun-control laws do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of
>law-abiding citizens ... so what if you have to wait a week? Do
>you really need to shoot something right now?
Today a small break in the Constitution, tomorrow the whole thing.
>But they MAY make it more difficult for a would-be criminal to
>get his hands on one.
I watched a 'criminal' selling machine guns over the counter legally
and the bigest customers were police officers. Don't give me that
business about gun control making it difficult for criminals to get
guns. In fact it makes it much easier for criminals because they
can be fairly sure that their victims will be law abidingly not
armed.
Gun control laws make it much easier on criminals and are particularly
hard on small weak people, like women, trying to protect themselves. But
then the STATE will have to make more and more onerous laws and
grow larger and more powerful police forces to deal with the problems
and then they will have to pass more and more laws to deal with people.
So long freedoms my man.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <stevens-2005...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
Steven L. Sheffield <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
>Classic "Liberalism" (in the ideological sense rather than the
>more modern left-wing sense) insists that the rights of the
>minority be protected. This is why we have a President who can
>veto legislation passed by Congress and a Supreme Court that can
>overturn laws signed by the President.
Just like those who say that Lincoln was a Democrat (which party
later changed their name to Republican) your mention of "Classic
Liberalism" is misleading. Most of the truly dangerous and power
grabbing laws being instituted today are being written by the
so-called liberal wing of the Democratic party.
Money has corrupt them all and the only way that the USA will ever
again achieve some equality amongst government and citizen is to
overrule most powers to tax.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <stevens-2005...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
Steven L. Sheffield <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
>The ACLU HAS defended the American Nazi Party (Smith v. Collin,
>439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291 [1978]), during their attempts to
>demonstrate in the heavily Jewish-populated Skokie, IL.
Excuse me, but this was a case carried by the ACLU only to
counter the arguments that they don't support WASP causes
even when there are strong Constitutional issues. In fact they
don't and one case from the far fringe doesn't make the organization
trustworthy or offer evidence that they are not directed to an agenda.
>Child molesters should be strung up by their balls. But in
>these times, a person's reputation and life can be destroyed
>simply by the allegation they have molested someone, regardless
>of whether or not the allegation is true ... and it's almost
>impossible to defend oneself against such an allegation, for
>there will always be people who will be convinced forever more
>that you are guilty, in spite of the absence of any evidence.
And of course this issue is pushed hardest by the lesbian front
who have been brought to prominence by the ACLU. My assumption is that
they must be the way they are from molestation and they are therefore
ultra-sensitive towards it. Fine, but as you say, the merest mention
of an allegation is enough to destroy people entirely.
Where was the ACLU in the various child molestation cases that were
so outrageously handled that entire families were destroyed?
Yeh, no Constitutional issues there, at least not as long as the
alleged perpetrators were white.
>(cf. the recent San Francisco case in
>which a man was sent to prison for life for stealing a slice of
>pizza, because it was his "third strike").
Please be careful you don't really describe the case. Only outline
the briefest possible description and leave out the details so that
the case looks completely different than it was.
Steven L. Sheffield
> In article <stevens-2005...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
> Steven L. Sheffield <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
> >Gun-control laws do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of
> >law-abiding citizens ... so what if you have to wait a week? Do
> >you really need to shoot something right now?
>
> Really? Try buying a handgun legally in Chicago, or New York.
>
> It isn't the waiting period that most people really object to,
> it is the registration. Some of use would rather that the bloody
> facists/communists/statists in D.C. didn't know which citizen units
> actually hold the _final_ check on their power.
>
> >But they MAY make it more difficult for a would-be criminal to
> >get his hands on one.
>
> <snort>. Yeah, all those 14 years old crack dealers bought their
> Uzi's with their AMEX Gold cards.
Probably not ... but it will likely keep John Q. Public from going
out and buying a gun to kill his wife after he's just been thown out
for cheating on her.
Petro
In article <stevens-2005...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
Steven L. Sheffield <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
>> In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts15-2.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
>> Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
>> > The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.
>> > It is an organization who's soul purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights.
>> Except for the 2nd amendment, of course.
If you'd bother to read the federalist papers, you might realize that
the reason that _every_ person can (or should be able to) own a gun is to
keep the "well regulated" militia in check.
>any schmuck who can afford it to buy a gun.
Hey, we let them own cars. Cars kil more people a year AS A SIDE
EFFECT OF THEIR PRIMARY USE than guns do as THE primary use.
>Gun-control laws do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of
>law-abiding citizens ... so what if you have to wait a week? Do
>you really need to shoot something right now?
Really? Try buying a handgun legally in Chicago, or New York.
It isn't the waiting period that most people really object to,
it is the registration. Some of use would rather that the bloody
facists/communists/statists in D.C. didn't know which citizen units
actually hold the _final_ check on their power.
>But they MAY make it more difficult for a would-be criminal to
>get his hands on one.
<snort>. Yeah, all those 14 years old crack dealers bought their
Uzi's with their AMEX Gold cards.
--
The address from which this message was posted is a spam trap. If you can't
figure out how to get in touch with me, I don't want to hear from you.
Terry Rudd
Steven L. Sheffield (ste...@veloworks.com) wrote:
: In article <5lt0ov$j...@clarknet.clark.net>, k...@clark.net (Keith Lynch) wrote:
: > In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts15-2.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
: > Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
: > > The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.
: > > It is an organization who's soul purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights.
: >
: > Except for the 2nd amendment, of course.
: God forbid that we have a "well-regulated Militia" ... let's allow
: any schmuck who can afford it to buy a gun.
: Gun-control laws do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of
: law-abiding citizens ... so what if you have to wait a week? Do
: you really need to shoot something right now?
: But they MAY make it more difficult for a would-be criminal to
: get his hands on one.
It is hard to believe you posted this nonsense after such an accurate
and intelligent post regarding our method of government. Criminals don't
get guns from gun shops, except for the very stupid ones. Criminals
steal them or buy them off the street from other criminals. While I could
care less that I might have to wait a week to purchase a gun, this is one
of the most myopic laws on the books with regard to crime prevention.
More to the point, the ACLU has no interest at all in protecting the
second amendment and has publically stated so. They are very politically
oriented and quite Politically Correct and not at all ashamed of those
facts. They are also careful to only take on cases where they can generate
tremendous publicity. While I have not arguement with their charter, it
is their methods and results I find objectionable.
Now back to bicycles!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Terry Rudd | Hewlett Packard/Fort Collins Site | (970) 229-2217 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Requisite Disclaimer: HP speaks for HP, I speaks for me and that's that. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana C. Bruggeman
In article <stevens-2105...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
Steven L. Sheffield <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
[gun control laws]
>Probably not ... but it will likely keep John Q. Public from going
>out and buying a gun to kill his wife after he's just been thown out
>for cheating on her.
But since his wive is a woman, which is like a small weak person or
something, she already owns a gun to protect herself from criminals.
Thus, she did not just throw hubby out, but blew his head off right away.
All of this was, of course, orchestrated by Thomas Jefferson, some 200
years ago.
Jeaan
--
`\------,(__) Some folk'll never eat a skunk, __o
* | (oo) but then again some folk'll, _`\<,_
* ||w--||(..)~*~* like Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel. (_)/ (_)
Rick Arnoldy
>ste...@veloworks.com writes...
>
>>You're not being forced to listen or observe. You can change the
>>channel. You can walk away from a street demonstration. You can
>>choose to vote with your dollars that you don't support a particular
>>author, musician, or cause. You have the choice, thanks to the ACLU.
>
Hhmm. Didn't a few other people have something to do with this
back in 1776? Was the ACLU around then?
Donald S. Finan
In article <3380F5...@tiac.net>, Gary Smiley <gasm...@tiac.net> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>>
snip!
>>
>> Are personal attacks really necessary? I'm sorry if my typing skills are
>> not up to your standards.
>>
>> > >So... Could I ask for your help with this great endeavor?
>> >
>> >
snip!
>I can't believe what people are saying. If someone wanted to go on an
>AIDS ride, or cancer research ride, would they be catching all this
>flack? If you believe in something, then go for it! You are a true
>freedom rider!
Well, I suspect quite a few people were offended when he asked for
donations of pretty much everything needed for such a ride except for
the bike.
--
==>====>====>====>====>====>====>====>====>====>====>====>====>====>====>==
Don Finan "A really hoopy frood who knows
dfi...@ucs.indiana.edu where his towel is."
==<====<====<====<====<====<====<====<====<====<====<====<====<====<====<==
standupsteve
>
> You're not being forced to listen or observe. You can change the
> channel. You can walk away from a street demonstration. You can
> choose to vote with your dollars that you don't support a particular
> author, musician, or cause. You have the choice, thanks to the ACLU.
>
Thanks to the ACLU? The ACLU wrote the Bill of Rights? or do they just
interpret it day by day to fit whatever case they have chosen for the
headlines that day?
I do not dispute the good they have done, or the attention to oppression
they bring...
But let us put credit where it is due. In the American public... The
ACLU is a small cog in the American wheel. Its good to have when needed,
but it isn't a cog to be used in every instance. You mention 24
innocents being put to death... Are there any numbers on how many times
the ACLU has thrown into a case before all the facts were out to
"defend" the wrong party? Granted, not a life or death instance... but
if statistics are important, let's have them all. Pro and con.
Does a 14 year old have a right to store a gun or drugs in his locker?
No. But apparently he should have the right, as a minor, to not let his
locker be searched by an adult in charge of keeping order in the school
so that he won't get in trouble.
Does a burglar who is shot in a home while performing his thievory have
the right to sue the homeowner for injury? apparently.
Do illegal aliens have the right to our social, health and education
benefits? apparently.
Do businesses have the right to hire who they want? apparently not.
Are all cases extreme? No. And not all make the news. The ACLU doesn't
need help being in the news, they just need to stop writing the news.
Christopher D. Weiss
> But since his wive is a woman, which is like a small weak person or
> something, she already owns a gun to protect herself from criminals.
> Thus, she did not just throw hubby out, but blew his head off right away.
> All of this was, of course, orchestrated by Thomas Jefferson, some 200
> years ago.
>
> Jeaan
> --
> `\------,(__) Some folk'll never eat a skunk, __o
> * | (oo) but then again some folk'll, _`\<,_
> * ||w--||(..)~*~* like Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel. (_)/ (_)
I can't remember, did Jefferson ride Ti or was he a steel man?
Thomas A. Burling
>>You're not being forced to listen or observe. You can change the
>>channel. You can walk away from a street demonstration. You can
>>choose to vote with your dollars that you don't support a particular
>>author, musician, or cause. You have the choice, thanks to the ACLU.
Good idea. Could someone tell me how to find the channel where I can
buy and sell used bike parts?
Mark Hickey
ste...@veloworks.com writes...
>The laws aren't designed to protect the guilty, they're designed
>to protect the innocent. Were you aware that 24 people have been
>executed in the United States for crimes they did NOT commit, for
>which they were later exonerated?
Which is a terrible thing. OTOH, how many innocent people have
been killed by "rehabilitated" repeat offenders? There's no easy
answer - two wrongs don't make a right, but ultimately it's the
innocents who pay for the rights we accord hardened criminals.
Not all societies pander to the criminal element as much as we
do in the US, and most of them are safer places to live as a
result.
>Death is irreversible. I would rather see a guilty man go free
>than risk an innocent man be wrongfully executed. If the government
>did it's job correctly to begin with, then the criminal would not
>have been allowed to go free.
Agreed on all counts. Totally.
>But I guess you'd rather have lived during the era of McCarthyism,
>when the mere allegation that one's views were left of center was
>enough to cause people to lose their jobs.
But wasn't the PC movement just McCarthyism from the left, at least
at times?
>The ACLU also takes on cases in which people have been discriminated
>against. The ACLU is partially responsible for ensuring that you
>can't get fired if you get AIDS, if you are a member of a minority,
>if you are injured on the job, etc.
Which is a groovy thing if it's applied equally in all cases. I
don't think you really meant to type "you can't get fired if....".
Of COURSE you can - but not "because you are". Otherwise an
injured homosexual eskimo would have more job security than
anyone else! ;-)
>You're not being forced to listen or observe. You can change the
>channel. You can walk away from a street demonstration. You can
>choose to vote with your dollars that you don't support a particular
>author, musician, or cause. You have the choice, thanks to the ACLU.
I would say it's a stretch to give the ACLU credit for freedom of
speech. There were some guys who had the idea quite a while before
the ACLU sprang up in the country they founded.....
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.cynetfl.com/habanero/
Home of the $675 ti frame
Adriana C. Bruggeman
In article <01bc66f1$5f6d95a0$4abd...@Cleo.itssoftware.com>,
Christopher D. Weiss <cwe...@itssoftware.com> wrote:
>I can't remember, did Jefferson ride Ti or was he a steel man?
TI-Raleigh! With Jan Raas and Gerrie Kneteman!
Mike Battle
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> In article <tomkEAF...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <nekervis.3-18...@ts15-1.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
> > Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >My name is Robert Nekervis. Next month I am going to do a solo trip
> > >across the united states. Part of my reason for going on this journey is
> > >to bring awareness to the ACLU.
> >
> > Yeh, Robert, I hope you really put the spotlight on those jerks.
> > It's time that most of what they do is more closely observed by
> > the citizens of this country.
>
> You mean like defending the freedom of the press to report on the illegal
> activities of government officials, helping to enforce the Freedom of
> Information Act, protecting freedom of expression, protecting rights of
> access to information through the Internet, and things like that? Or are
> you just referring to the ACLU actions that don't conform to your
> knee-jerk reactionary conservative viewpoint?
>
> --
> What do you want me to do, to do for you while you're sleeping?
> Then please don't be surprised when you find me dreaming too.
>
> -Robert Hunter
Man, you must be as inexperienced and naive as you are unequipped.
Today I heard about the ACLU losing a lawsuit in which they challenged
an ordinance (I believe it was on the municipal or county level but I
don't remember just where) which required minor children to be in off
the streets by midnight on weekdays and 1AM on weekends. Now, I
personally do not have any children, but my SO does, and their narrow
little butts BETTER be in this door by 1AM, or the cops have my and her)
approval to collect them and drag them home..... You may wish to argue
the point, but I think the ACLU is "misguided" in interfering with
police reinforcement of what any responsible parent would regard as a
reasonable behavioral restriction ... on minor children. If the
community which enacted this law feels it is apropriate, it is NOT the
business of the ACLU (or the federal government, for that matter) to
dispute them.
I've heard of "Cinderella licenses", which are issued to minors and are
only good until midnight. After 12 you have to be home, you can't drive
any more.
Let's talk about that Constitution which you make so much noise about
the ACLU preservng. Have you actually READ it? I doubt it. If you
had, you would have noticed that the major intent of the document was to
preserve sovreign power for the individual states, while uniting them
together for mutual defense and common commerce. GO AHEAD AND READ IT!
The people who wrote it had recently broken away from a tyrannical
regime which they had found intolerable. They DIDN'T want to take ANY
chance of that happening again, and were willing to risk anarchy as a
preferable form of goverment. Anything went. This wes before the ACLU,
the democratic or republican parties, or the present hundreds of
thousands of pages of federal legislation. The federal government went
astray with the commerce act, completely lost it with the 16th
ammendment, and has since become nothing but a chain about the neck of
the american citizen.
And the ACLU wants to interfere with the authority of parents and
communities to get the kids into bed at a decent hour.
I'm sorry, but I think there are more important, more serious, more
fundamental abuses to our freedom happening nowadays.
Mike
Let's talk about that Constitution which you make so much
noise about the ACLU preserving, shall we?
russell john haynes
Okay, let's talk about the constitution. You defeated yourself with
your own arguments. I have read the constitution (many times) while
studying here for my law degree (with emphasis on tax and constitutional
law). The ACLU is defending the individual rights of parents to
determine what time their kids should be in. You said that the
Constitution was written to retain the individuals power over the
sovreig state - you're right. That's exactly what the ACLU was
defending. It was arguing that parents should deterine, not the police
force which is considered to be part of government. The ACLU takes no
sides on issues save that of the constitutional rights of the populice.
I can't believe that people don't see this. If we were to allow the
Constitutionally granted rights of citizens to be violate because certain
people in this country feel that punishment and enforcment of the family
values that most of us take for granted is a job for the government, then
you don't believe in democracy. The ACLU is simply arguing against
things that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I'm sure the lawyers who are hired by
them hate to see a known criminal walk and most of them probably have
their kids in 1 also. But, they are defending the rights that we are
given. If these rights are compromised, then so is our way of life and
we aren't living in a democracy, but a socialist regime run by the
government. Many would argue that this is already the way things
are.... Wake up and be glad that someone is fighting for EVERYONE'S
rights. It may not seem like they are defending the victims always, but
they are defending the Constitution against people who are too willing to
bend it for their own personal beliefs. And by the way, I'm not sure
that this discussion is relevant to this news-group. Please think about
your arguments and who you are really trying to defend before you flame a
group that works very hard to defend the rights of people who don't
really appreciate them because they have never been taken away. Think
people. Think.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.97052...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
russell john haynes <r-ha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>The ACLU takes no
>sides on issues save that of the constitutional rights of the populice.
^^^^^^^^
Perhaps a Freudian slip?
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <01bc66f1$5f6d95a0$4abd...@Cleo.itssoftware.com>,
Christopher D. Weiss <cwe...@itssoftware.com> wrote:
>I can't remember, did Jefferson ride Ti or was he a steel man?
Thomas Jefferson was definitely a high-tech kinda guy. You figure
he'd be on a Y-frame?
Long Pham
In article <stevens-2105...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
ste...@veloworks.com says...>> In article <stevens-2005...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
>> >law-abiding citizens ... so what if you have to wait a week? Do
>> >you really need to shoot something right now?
>>
>>
>> It isn't the waiting period that most people really object to,
>> it is the registration. Some of use would rather that the bloody
>> facists/communists/statists in D.C. didn't know which citizen units
>> actually hold the _final_ check on their power.
>>
>> >get his hands on one.
>>
>> Uzi's with their AMEX Gold cards.
>
>out and buying a gun to kill his wife after he's just been thown out
>for cheating on her.
>
Yeah, he can't buy a gun so he gets a knife and stabs her. Real Good !!
Current gun control laws are written by people who think that a gun can just
jump up from the table and shoot you. Actually, I think they can, but then
they only shoot idiots.
Long Pham
In article <tomkEAJ...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <5lt0ov$j...@clarknet.clark.net>, Keith Lynch <k...@clark.net> wrote:
>>In article <nekervis.3-19...@ts15-2.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
>>Robert <neker...@osu.edu> wrote:
>>> The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.
>>> It is an organization who's soul purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>Except for the 2nd amendment, of course.
>
>what they are for or against. The ACLU pushes and agenda under the
>guise of supporting the Constitution.
>
>Right now the agenda seems that they are seeking superior rights for
>those who had ancestors with inferior rights. Equality doesn't seem to
>enter their thinking. Only revenge.
>
I don't give a rat's ass what the ACLU does or what it stands for, but if it
has a 50cm De Rosa with Campy SR Groupo for sale, I'll listen to what it has to
say ....
Long Pham
Bill
Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<tomkEAH...@netcom.com>...
> If you think that the ACLU care one drop about whether the
> Constitution is in effect or not just try getting them to
> support defending a Nazi. Surprise, all of a sudden they
> can't find a Constitutional issue in the case.
I believe the ACLU did defend the right of Nazi's et. al to demonstrate in
Skokie(sp?) Illinois a while back.
Anyone know for sure??
Bill
Stacey Jenkins
STOPIT!!STOPIT!!STOPIT!!STOPIT!!STOPIT!!STOPIT!!STOPIT!!
THIS THREAD HAS LOST IT"S DIRECTION. LET IT DIE, OR TAKE IT ELSEWHERE.
Cross posting has been limited intentionally.
Stacey Jenkins
spa...@vegasnet.net
Technical Support Supervisor
Las Vegas Internet Inc.
Rick Arnoldy
>=========="Christopher D. Weiss", 5/22/97==========
>
>> But since his wive is a woman, which is like a small weak person or
>> something, she already owns a gun to protect herself from criminals.
>> Thus, she did not just throw hubby out, but blew his head off
>right away.
>> All of this was, of course, orchestrated by Thomas Jefferson, some 200
>> years ago.
>>
>> Jeaan
>> --
>> `\------,(__) Some folk'll never eat a skunk, __o
>> * | (oo) but then again some folk'll, _`\<,_
>> * ||w--||(..)~*~* like Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel. (_)/ (_)
>
>
>I can't remember, did Jefferson ride Ti or was he a steel man?
>
>
I don't remember either but it had a gel saddle.
A Steamer Andy
Stacey Jenkins <NOSPAM...@vegasnet.net> wrote:
What thread are you talking about. I never saw it?
Can you tell me more.
Mark Hickey
rick.a...@daytonoh.ncr.com writes...
>
>>I can't remember, did Jefferson ride Ti or was he a steel man?
Oak, I think.
>I don't remember either but it had a gel saddle.
And if I recall my grade school teacher's accounts of Jefferson,
he also invented the "ZAP" shifting system.
Not to mention without him, we might still be welding with
torches instead of TIG.....
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.cynetfl.com/habanero/
Home of the $675 ti frame.
David Wiesenhahn
In Steven L. Sheffield's second post in this thread, he wrote:
> The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
> given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
> I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
But in his first post, he cited an oft-repeated urban myth, in defending a
waiting period on handgun purchases:
> Probably not ... but it will likely keep John Q. Public from going
> out and buying a gun to kill his wife after he's just been thown out
> for cheating on her.
So it sounds like you favor a "little" gun control. Isn't that the first
step (or the second) down the slippery slope (you supposedly object to) in
degrading our 2nd Amendment rights? If you believe in waiting periods on
handgun purchases, do you believe there should there be waiting periods on
expressions of free speech, too? Should newspapers -- or for that matter,
people who post on the internet -- be required to have a license before
publishing their work? Should they have to undergo background checks? Or
do you think the 1st Amendment is more important that the 2nd Amendment?
--
David Wiesenhahn IDA
mailto:dwie...@ida.org Alexandria, VA
Steven L. Sheffield
In article <dwiesenhahn-ya02408...@news.ida.org>,
dwies...@ida.org (David Wiesenhahn) wrote:
> In Steven L. Sheffield's second post in this thread, he wrote:
>
> > The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
> > given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
> > I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
>
> But in his first post, he cited an oft-repeated urban myth, in defending a
> waiting period on handgun purchases:
>
> > Probably not ... but it will likely keep John Q. Public from going
> > out and buying a gun to kill his wife after he's just been thown out
> > for cheating on her.
>
> So it sounds like you favor a "little" gun control. Isn't that the first
> step (or the second) down the slippery slope (you supposedly object to) in
> degrading our 2nd Amendment rights?
Gun control does nothing to degrade 2nd Amendment rights. Making
a person wait to BUY a gun does nothing to infringe their right to
"keep and bear" a gun. The 2nd Amendment also states that a
"well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free
State". The key words in the 2nd Amendment are "well-regulated".
No where does it say in the 2nd Amendment that the public has the
right to freely purchase weapons ... and banning certain types
of weapons will not prevent the public from still owning weapons.
Nobody needs an Uzi. But if a person makes it through the waiting
period cleanly, then sure ... let them own an Uzi.
Since people so often claim that the the "founding fathers" did not
envision television and the Internet, and use that as justification
for trying to regulate expression ... but the founding fathers did
not envision Uzis and automatic handguns when they wrote the 2nd
Amendment either ... but those same people claim that the 2nd
Amendment gives them the unfettered right to buy, sell, and carry
those same weapons.
Why is it the same people who are against abortion (because it
is killing) are for the death penalty (which is also killing)?
Why is it the same people who want to restrict free speech
advocate unlimited access to guns and other weapons of mass
destruction.
> If you believe in waiting periods on
> handgun purchases, do you believe there should there be waiting periods on
> expressions of free speech, too? Should newspapers -- or for that matter,
> people who post on the internet -- be required to have a license before
> publishing their work? Should they have to undergo background checks? Or
> do you think the 1st Amendment is more important that the 2nd Amendment?
I do think the First Amendment is more important than the Second
Amendment. That's why it IS the first one ... for nothing is more
crucial to freedom and "democracy" than free speech.
standupsteve
>
> I do think the First Amendment is more important than the Second
> Amendment. That's why it IS the first one ... for nothing is more
> crucial to freedom and "democracy" than free speech.
>
> --
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Steven L. Sheffield (BOB #1765/IBOB #3) Disclaimer? What's that? |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | ste...@veloworks.com / http://www.veloworks.com/rivendell |
> | Voice: +1 415 296-9893 / Fax: +1 415 274-3259 / Ride yer bike! |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
How do you propose an unarmed citizenry protect the 1st ammendment
rights against a tyrannical government which more and more seems to be
concerned with bashing acheivement, spreading the wealth of those who
work hard to those who don't, and continuing to pander to those who
would rather be "politically correct" than realistic about the role of
government in the United States?
The Constitution guarantees freedoms, but now it seems to be forgotten
what the price of those freedoms were. On Memorial Day of all days,
bickering over rights is pissing in the wind unless those who gave up
everything to protect them are given their voice.
As the military is continually downsized and the welfare state is
continually increased, all that can be accomplished is a growing
dependency on government as a provider rather than the backbone of our
freedom to accomplish ourselves.
The ACLU continues to champion the trampled and oppressed, taht is as
long as they fit the "politically correct" profile.
Besides, where was the ACLU when Raleigh was sued for not putting lights
on its bikes when some moron rode at night, got hit, and sued the
company for millions because he was smart enough to hire a lawyer but
stupid enough not to notice the sun had gone down?
Or were they backing the idiot?
Gregory S. Croon
> Amendment. That's why it IS the first one ... for nothing is more
> crucial to freedom and "democracy" than free speech.
"What's wrong with a waiting period before you publish a newspaper while
the government checks your facts?" A waiting period on publication
would go a long way toward alleviating the damage done by
"hole-in-the-wall publishers." We are confident real newspapers and
magazines will have no problem with this proposal. Only publishers that
spread inaccurate information and untruths will suffer more than an
inconvenience. Pre-eminent Constitutional scholars are all in agreement
that the free press provision of the First Amendment, having been
drafted at a time when today's high tech engines of publication could
not have been anticipated, and does not protect the unregulated use of
desk-top publishing software, personal printers, copiers, and other such
devices.
-Press Control International (PCI)
--
Gregory S. Croon, Engineer, Vienna, VA USA gre...@erols.com
AF&AM & Life Member NRA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Science not Sorcery ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Balter
hau...@mbi.org wrote:
>
> In article <3381FF...@aol.com> The Serbinator <serbi...@aol.com> writes:
> >From: The Serbinator <serbi...@aol.com>
> >Subject: Re: Dear Fellow cyclists... Please help
> >Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 15:44:19 -0400
>
> >> >
> >> > Brought to you by the founding fathers and many lives of people who
> >> > have given theirs to protect this country in a 200 year history.
> >> >
> >> > NOT given by the ACLU and their belief that the very people who founded
> >> > this country are criminals in need of punishment.
> >>
> >> Interesting, I never knew the ACLU had a policy to arrest dead people.
> >>
> >> Please tell me more.
>
> >Rob, this childish post of yours demeans your entire argument and likens
> >you to Haubert. DON'T resort to trivialities and such to get defend your
> >points....
>
> I'm sure you meant that with the best of intentions, "Serb"! But in fact,
> Robert would have to do far, far better to be even remotely comparable to me.
Since you made a ridiculous claim and Robert asked you to back it up and
you have failed to do so, it's hard to see why Robert would have to
do better to be comparable to an intellectually dishonest ideologue
blowhard.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Hueser wrote:
>
> Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> >
> >wrote:
> >>Contrary to your ideas about the ACLU they only support causes and
> >>people that conform to their own subjective and ultra-liberal views.
>
> >Like defending the First Amendment so that not only due the
> >ultra-liberals have the right to burn the flag to protest their
> >government, but also so that ultra-conservative/right-wing
> >groups (like the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party) have the
> >right to demonstrate.
>
> So we have the aclu to thank for that.
No, we have the 1st amendment and the Supreme Court (y' know,
those ultra-liberals like Scalia and Rehnquist, who ruled in favor
of the right to burn the flag) to thank for that.
> >>The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the minority from the majority
> >>but the ACLU often seems to interpret that as meaning protecting
> >>criminals from law abiding citizens.
The Supreme Court interprets the law, not the ACLU.
> >'Tis better that a guilty man go free, than an innocent man
> >spend time in jail or die for a crime he didn't commit. 'Tis
> >better that a guilty man go free than chance having our rights
> >(as law-abiding citizens) restricted by an increasingly oppressive
> >government.
>
> Or a better motto for the aclu is "Tis better that a guilty man go free
> and kill an innocent man and his family, than pay for his original
> crime." or "Tis better for a guilty man to oppress the innocent, than
> have a guilty man restricted by law-abiding citizens."
Sorry, but there's this little matter of the 4th, 5th, and 6th
amendments. If you prefer a system with different priorities,
you are welcome to join their social contract instead.
> Why should the government's actions absolve a guilty mans's deeds
> against another individual. I do not see the government losing or being
> restricted, only the person who was the original victim.
>
> >The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
> >given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
> >I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
>
> There are restrictions to free speech and expression everywhere. Try
> yelling "Fire!" in the movie theater, "Bomb!" in the airport. Do you
> want to remove those resrictions?
There are notions of "grave and imminent danger" and "compelling state
interests" that are used to decide such cases. The Supreme Court found
that these did not apply to flag burning or to the KKK in Skokie.
You in your ignorance of such matters just aren't happy with the
outcome. Too bad. Perhaps you might try reading the relevant
SC decisions, to better understand the level of analysis that is
involved.
> Why should I be forced to listen or observe? Doesn't this encroach on
> my rights?
The Supreme Court takes that into consideration. They also take into
consideration your ability to turn your head, avert your eyes,
not buy a newspaper, not click on that URL, etc., as you apparently
have not.
> >But, since this thread has nothing to do with bicycling anymore,
> >let's either move it to private e-mail or to a more appropriate
> >newsgroup.
>
> That didn't stop your comment, did it? Is this a restriction on free
> speech?
It is rather intellectually dishonest to ask that a discussion be
ended *after* one (Stephen Sheffield in this case) gets in his last
word, but it has nothing to do with restrictions on free speech, since
those are *legal* restrictions that are *enforced* by the power of the
state.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> ste...@veloworks.com writes...
>
> >The laws aren't designed to protect the guilty, they're designed
> >to protect the innocent. Were you aware that 24 people have been
> >executed in the United States for crimes they did NOT commit, for
> >which they were later exonerated?
>
> Which is a terrible thing. OTOH, how many innocent people have
> been killed by "rehabilitated" repeat offenders? There's no easy
> answer - two wrongs don't make a right, but ultimately it's the
> innocents who pay for the rights we accord hardened criminals.
> Not all societies pander to the criminal element as much as we
> do in the US, and most of them are safer places to live as a
> result.
Given our standing among the other nations of the world in terms of
prisons and prisoners per capita, it is absurd to charge the U.S. with
"pandering". The safety correlation is largely with ease of gun
ownership, although that is not the whole of it, as examples like
Switzerland attest to. There are much deeper issues of culture
and history involved. And much of the world is pretty dangerous,
contrary to your fantasies. I happen to live in Santa Barbara, where
people treat constitutional protections (for everyone, not just with
your misrepresentative "hardened criminals") with considerable respect,
and this is a very safe town where even a lone woman can walk the
street at night safely, despite all our "pandering".
> >Death is irreversible. I would rather see a guilty man go free
> >than risk an innocent man be wrongfully executed. If the government
> >did it's job correctly to begin with, then the criminal would not
> >have been allowed to go free.
>
> Agreed on all counts. Totally.
>
> >But I guess you'd rather have lived during the era of McCarthyism,
> >when the mere allegation that one's views were left of center was
> >enough to cause people to lose their jobs.
>
> But wasn't the PC movement just McCarthyism from the left, at least
> at times?
"politically correct" was originally a joking chide on the left
for people who took their commitments so seriously that they weren't
any fun. In the early nineties some right-wing columnists took this
term and combined it with with a few anecdotes of excessive cases of
college bureaucrats regulating behavior into an ideological campaign
against the left, so that anyone who voiced any concern about sexism
or racism could immediately be branded "politically correct", thereby
implicitly declaring their own right-wing ideology *actually*
politically correct. This is nothing like McCarthyism that led to
widespread blacklisting and destruction of lives; you are probably
too young to remember the details, but it is worth reading up on
before you start making this sort of comparison.
> >The ACLU also takes on cases in which people have been discriminated
> >against. The ACLU is partially responsible for ensuring that you
> >can't get fired if you get AIDS, if you are a member of a minority,
> >if you are injured on the job, etc.
>
> Which is a groovy thing if it's applied equally in all cases. I
> don't think you really meant to type "you can't get fired if....".
> Of COURSE you can - but not "because you are". Otherwise an
> injured homosexual eskimo would have more job security than
> anyone else! ;-)
You knew what he meant.
> >You're not being forced to listen or observe. You can change the
> >channel. You can walk away from a street demonstration. You can
> >choose to vote with your dollars that you don't support a particular
> >author, musician, or cause. You have the choice, thanks to the ACLU.
>
> I would say it's a stretch to give the ACLU credit for freedom of
> speech. There were some guys who had the idea quite a while before
> the ACLU sprang up in the country they founded.....
Which is exactly the point. We do have the ACLU to thank for
helping those ideas to hold their place against a rather strong
ideological opposition. Without the ACLU, you might well not have those
choices, regardless of what is written on a piece of parchment.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Thomas H. Kunich wrote:
>
> In article <stevens-1905...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
> >ultra-liberals have the right to burn the flag to protest their
> >government, but also so that ultra-conservative/right-wing
> >groups (like the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party) have the
> >right to demonstrate.
>
> you but the Nazi's are _socialists_. If you look it up you will
> find that Nazi is National Socialist Party. Ultra-conservative
> huh?
Read your history. Hitler infiltrated and took over the socialist
movement in Germany, eliminating those above him with whatever means
necessary, until he "democratically" won control of Germany. Does that
make him a democrat? Just what depths of intellectual dishonesty does
it take to stoop to "looky, looky, they had 'socialist' in their name"?
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Thomas H. Kunich wrote:
>
> In article <stevens-2005...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,> >The ACLU HAS defended the American Nazi Party (Smith v. Collin,
> >439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291 [1978]), during their attempts to
> >demonstrate in the heavily Jewish-populated Skokie, IL.
>
> Excuse me, but this was a case carried by the ACLU only to
> counter the arguments that they don't support WASP causes
> even when there are strong Constitutional issues. In fact they
> don't and one case from the far fringe doesn't make the organization
> trustworthy or offer evidence that they are not directed to an agenda.
Back up this charge, you liar. They lost a large segment of their
membership over this case.
> >Child molesters should be strung up by their balls. But in
> >these times, a person's reputation and life can be destroyed
> >simply by the allegation they have molested someone, regardless
> >of whether or not the allegation is true ... and it's almost
> >impossible to defend oneself against such an allegation, for
> >there will always be people who will be convinced forever more
> >that you are guilty, in spite of the absence of any evidence.
>
> And of course this issue is pushed hardest by the lesbian front
> who have been brought to prominence by the ACLU. My assumption is that
Your "assumption"? You mean your appalling ignorance, don't you?
> they must be the way they are from molestation and they are therefore
> ultra-sensitive towards it. Fine, but as you say, the merest mention
> of an allegation is enough to destroy people entirely.
>
> Where was the ACLU in the various child molestation cases that were
> so outrageously handled that entire families were destroyed?
You tell us, with evidence, not innuendo.
> Yeh, no Constitutional issues there, at least not as long as the
> alleged perpetrators were white.
Your racism raises its ugly head. Much of the ACLU membership is
upper class whites, and the idea that ACLU policies are racially
driven is intellectually dishonest innuendo. Do you ever validate
any of your raving opinions with facts, or do you just live a life
in which your anger at the way you think things are just feeds further
such fantasies?
> >(cf. the recent San Francisco case in
> >which a man was sent to prison for life for stealing a slice of
> >pizza, because it was his "third strike").
>
> Please be careful you don't really describe the case. Only outline
> the briefest possible description and leave out the details so that
> the case looks completely different than it was.
You are quite the innuendo artist, aren't you? Tell us what he left
out. A number of quite conservative judges have written against "three
strikes", some have resigned, and others routinely ignore it (but with
decisions overturned on appeal). Even Justice Kennedy has testified
before Congress about the problems with mandatory sentencing laws,
of which "three strikes" is the most extreme, and how they abandon
well-established principles of justice.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Yes, they did, as has been mentioned here several times,
including a case cite.
Kunich is simply a liar. After having that case pointed out,
he then claimed that it was just a token "WASP" case (as if the world
could be divided into "non-WASP" and "Nazi"; a fascinating illustration
of his concept of race), despite the fact that taking the case was
a very controversial decision that lost the ACLU a large segment of its
membership. Kunich's lies and innuendo and intellectually dishonest
backpedaling are a fine example in action of the sort of mindset that
the ACLU has to deal with, of people who wave the flag with one hand
and vote to undermine the Bill of Rights with the other.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
>
> In article <dwiesenhahn-ya02408...@news.ida.org>,
> dwies...@ida.org (David Wiesenhahn) wrote:
>
> > In Steven L. Sheffield's second post in this thread, he wrote:
> >
> > > given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
> > > I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
> >
Presumably because those who receive the death penalty are deemed
morally culpable.
A better question is, why are the people who are against abortion
so often also against government spending on education, birth control,
pre-natal care, etc.? It is worth noting that many people in the
pro-choice movement are anti-abortion in the sense of wanting to do
whatever they can to prevent it, short of legislating against women.
BTW, The notion of abortion as murder and the activism surrounding it
was not a significant feature of American politics until Richard
Viguerie and Paul Weyrich turned it into one as part of their strategy
for electing Ronald Reagan in 1980, a rather brilliant piece of work
for which they have been given considerable credit by analysts on both
the right and the left.
In any case, I think this question detracts from your good points
about the 2nd amendment.
> Why is it the same people who want to restrict free speech
> advocate unlimited access to guns and other weapons of mass
> destruction.
>
> > If you believe in waiting periods on
> > handgun purchases, do you believe there should there be waiting periods on
> > expressions of free speech, too? Should newspapers -- or for that matter,
> > people who post on the internet -- be required to have a license before
> > publishing their work? Should they have to undergo background checks? Or
> > do you think the 1st Amendment is more important that the 2nd Amendment?
>
> I do think the First Amendment is more important than the Second
> Amendment. That's why it IS the first one ... for nothing is more
> crucial to freedom and "democracy" than free speech.
I think you are on weak grounds there historically. There were
originally 12 amendments; the first two weren't ratified.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Thomas H. Kunich wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.97052...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> russell john haynes <r-ha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >sides on issues save that of the constitutional rights of the populice.
>
> Perhaps a Freudian slip?
"civil liberties" == "constitutional rights of the populace".
Sounds right to me.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
Bart Blair wrote:
> Hey, I am also planning a tour this summer. Actually, it will be a
> bunch of tours. However, they will be short tours that will leave my
> house several times a week and then return to my house at night. Why
> will these to
> urs be so short??? BECAUSE I HAVE TO WORK TO PAY FOR THEM!!! Maybe
> this is something that you should try! I don't know your background,
> (ie student, gainfully employed, etc) but I go out and earn what you
> need, don't a
> sk me to support your goals in the shroud of "something better" for the
> rest of the country.
>
> Good luck in your tour, but make it your tour, not our tour.
I get a cable channel that has lots of coverage of bicycle events,
and a lot of that coverage is of sponsored tours. And the buzzword
these days, pushed largely by "small government" advocates, is
volunteerism, which includes sponsoring other people who go out and do
something, be it work in a free clinic or help people find jobs or
ride for muscular dystrophy or Bosnian refugees or ... the ACLU.
If you don't like his cause, you don't have to support it, but it is
no crime to put your ass on the seat for a cause you do believe in,
and to ask for a hand from those who are sympathetic.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
hau...@mbi.org wrote:
>
> In article <timmcn-2005...@dialup-298.minn.net> tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) writes:
> >From: tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara)
> >Subject: Re: Dear Fellow cyclists... Please help
>
> >In article <haubert.41...@mbi.org>, hau...@mbi.org wrote:
>
> >> Now you're making a huge and completely unfounded assumption, which is, I
> >> suppose, a typical ultra-liberal trait. So, are you denying that most ACLU
> >> activities are, in the end, self-serving?
>
> Tim writes:
>
> >And the conservatives don't make huge and completely unfounded
> >assumptions? And most conservative activities are not self serving?
>
> Thanks for proving my point, Tim! Your assumption that I am expressing
> conservative views is erroneous.
He made no such assumption; he pointed out that this "trait" applies to
both liberals and conservatives. What you wrote is fallacious
regardless of your political ideology.
> >Gimme a break, human nature occurs on both sides of the fence. The
> >conservatives want to deny me my right to live my life as I choose just as
> >much as the liberals. Both groups should get off our backs!
>
> Actually, I agree - to a point. The trouble here is that most ACLU activities
> are NOT mildly liberal - they are extreme; therefore, most people don't agree
> with them.
Most people when asked don't recognize the Bill of Rights and,
given suggestive wording, will believe that it is a Communist or Nazi
document.
This brings up another tragic irony - majority rules is one of the
> most basic concepts of democracy - yet the ACLU plays dictator by ignoring
> the wishes of the majority.
The ACLU brings cases before courts who make decisions according to the
law. One of the purposes of the bill of rights is to protect people
against the tyranny of the majority and the whims of the times.
You can find much on that in the writings of Madison and Jefferson.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
hau...@mbi.org wrote:
> Actually, it was more of an attack on your university, high school, and grade
> school. Typing skills? - sorry, but your errors are clearly grammar,
> spelling, and word use problems.
And what sort of education leads to substituting mere opinion
and "suspicion" for facts?
> No, actually I find it pathetic and very disheartening that our universities
> are graduating people who make such very basic errors, and also are so naive
> to think that the ACLU is such a wonderful group.
Facts to the contrary?
> >> >Individuals can and will change the world
> >>
> >> Sometimes, but.....I suspect that most of the real ACLU fans don't give
> >a hoot
> >> about cyclists, and in fact most probably think they're nuts.
>
> >Where do you get this information? I know a great number of people who
> >support the ACLU and who actively bike.
>
> Even if it really is a 'great' number, it's still a tiny percentage. I stand
> by my suspicion.
Without facts to support it.
> >>...In most
> >> cases, their real concern is 'what's in it for ME?'
> >>
>
> >You obviously have a very different outlook on life. I can respect that.
> >Just don't expect me or others to embrace your "Ayn Rand" philosophy.
>
> Now you're making a huge and completely unfounded assumption, which is, I
> suppose, a typical ultra-liberal trait.
You "suppose"? What sort of education leads to such sweeping
generalizations?
> So, are you denying that most ACLU
> activities are, in the end, self-serving?
In the end, we are all self-serving. The ACLU serves its charter,
which is to defend civil liberties. Facts to the contrary are welcome.
--
<J Q B>
Petro
In article <stevens-2505...@velowrks.vip.best.com>,
Woh boy. Got a real Newspeak type here.
>a person wait to BUY a gun does nothing to infringe their right to
>"keep and bear" a gun. The 2nd Amendment also states that a
>"well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free
>State". The key words in the 2nd Amendment are "well-regulated".
And I quote:
A well regualted militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed.
You would claim that the "key words" in that sentence are "well
regualted". I would counter with "NOT BE INFRINGED".
>No where does it say in the 2nd Amendment that the public has the
>right to freely purchase weapons ... and banning certain types
Well, unless you expect people to make their own, yes it does.
On the other hand no where does the constitution give the
government the right to REGULATE weapons.
>of weapons will not prevent the public from still owning weapons.
>Nobody needs an Uzi. But if a person makes it through the waiting
Everybody needs an Uzi. I am not joking.
>Why is it the same people who are against abortion (because it
>is killing) are for the death penalty (which is also killing)?
>Why is it the same people who want to restrict free speech
>advocate unlimited access to guns and other weapons of mass
>destruction.
Well, I happen to be both pro-abortion (in fact, I think people
should be able to abort their children until they reach 18 years old.)
and pro death penalty, but I think I can answer your question with a
fair degree of accuracy:
In the case of abortion, the alleged human being has committed no
crime, has infringed on no-ones rights, and is as innocent as possible. A
person who has been sentenced to death is usually (leaving aside a few
accidents) guilty of some fairly heinous shit, and has proven themselves
a threat to society. Two _very_ different things.
>> If you believe in waiting periods on
>> handgun purchases, do you believe there should there be waiting periods on
>> expressions of free speech, too? Should newspapers -- or for that matter,
>> people who post on the internet -- be required to have a license before
>> publishing their work? Should they have to undergo background checks? Or
>> do you think the 1st Amendment is more important that the 2nd Amendment?
>
>I do think the First Amendment is more important than the Second
>Amendment. That's why it IS the first one ... for nothing is more
>crucial to freedom and "democracy" than free speech.
Without the second the first wouldn't last a year.
--
The address from which this message was posted is a spam trap. If you can't
figure out how to get in touch with me, I don't want to hear from you.
Jim Balter
Petro wrote:
> Everybody needs an Uzi. I am not joking.
Is that to shoot dogs that attack you on your bike, or to shoot the cops
when they try to arrest you for exercising your absolute 1st amendment
right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre?
--
<J Q B>
Tp
--------------F22D38DAB0C0B4E444C12C24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David Wiesenhahn wrote:
> In Steven L. Sheffield's second post in this thread, he wrote:
>
> > The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
>
> > given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
> > I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
>
> But in his first post, he cited an oft-repeated urban myth, in
> defending a
> waiting period on handgun purchases:
>
> > Probably not ... but it will likely keep John Q. Public from going
> > out and buying a gun to kill his wife after he's just been thown out
>
> > for cheating on her.
>
> So it sounds like you favor a "little" gun control. Isn't that the
> first
> step (or the second) down the slippery slope (you supposedly object
> to) in
> degrading our 2nd Amendment rights? If you believe in waiting periods
>
> on
> handgun purchases, do you believe there should there be waiting
> periods on
> expressions of free speech, too? Should newspapers -- or for that
> matter,
> people who post on the internet -- be required to have a license
> before
> publishing their work? Should they have to undergo background checks?
>
> Or
> do you think the 1st Amendment is more important that the 2nd
> Amendment?
>
> --
>
> David Wiesenhahn IDA
> mailto:dwie...@ida.org Alexandria, VA
Well stated David, it's funny how the first and second
amendments are so the same and yet so different, I am all for free
speech controls, after all the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen
the INTERNET!!!!
NOW, LETS PUT THIS THREAD TO BED. Or
move it to Politics: Radical Left
Just kidding on the speech control thing. :-)
--
Tp,
In the world of the blind. Would a one eyed man be King?
-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------
--------------F22D38DAB0C0B4E444C12C24
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
David Wiesenhahn wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In Steven L. Sheffield's second post in this thread,
he wrote:
<P>> The ACLU's sole purpose is defending the Constitution and the rights
<BR>> given therein ... even those rights that people may find offensive.
<BR>> I'm a firm believer in the "slippery-slope".
<P>But in his first post, he cited an oft-repeated urban myth, in
<BR>defending a
<BR>waiting period on handgun purchases:
<P>> Probably not ... but it will likely keep John Q. Public from going
<BR>> out and buying a gun to kill his wife after he's just been thown
out
<BR>> for cheating on her.
<P>So it sounds like you favor a "little" gun control. Isn't that
the
<BR>first
<BR>step (or the second) down the slippery slope (you supposedly object
<BR>to) in
<BR>degrading our 2nd Amendment rights? If you believe in waiting
periods
<BR>on
<BR>handgun purchases, do you believe there should there be waiting
<BR>periods on
<BR>expressions of free speech, too? Should newspapers -- or for
that
<BR>matter,
<BR>people who post on the internet -- be required to have a license
<BR>before
<BR>publishing their work? Should they have to undergo background
checks?
<BR>Or
<BR>do you think the 1st Amendment is more important that the 2nd
<BR>Amendment?
<P>--
<P>David Wiesenhahn
IDA
<BR><A HREF="mailto:dwie...@ida.org">mailto:dwie...@ida.org</A>
Alexandria, VA</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR> Well stated David, it's
funny how the first and second amendments are so the same and yet so different,
I am all for free speech controls, after all the Founding Fathers could
not have foreseen the INTERNET!!!!
<P>
NOW, LETS PUT THIS THREAD TO BED. Or move it to Politics: Radical
Left
<P>
<BR>
<P>Just kidding on the speech control thing. :-)
<BR>
<P>--
<BR>Tp,
<BR>In the world of the blind. Would a one eyed man be King?
<BR>-------- __o
<BR>----- -\<. -------- __o
<BR>--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
<BR>-------------------- ( )/ ( )
<BR>-----------------------------------------</HTML>
--------------F22D38DAB0C0B4E444C12C24--
Amacj
please
Don Winston
>
>Why is it the same people who are against abortion (because it
>is killing) are for the death penalty (which is also killing)?
>Why is it the same people who want to restrict free speech
>advocate unlimited access to guns and other weapons of mass
>destruction.
>
Why is it that people feel the need to use a broad brush with regard
to attitudes on the above issues? Why is it that if you have one set
of opinions on one issue, people assume you have particular opinions
on many other issues?
There are many people who believe in ALL our rights. You, Mr.
Liberal-- Stay the hell out of my wallet and my gun closet.
You, Mr. Conservative-- Stay the hell out of my bedroom.
Don Winston<dwin...@erols.com>