Indesputable Evidence Unearthed in Russia that the ACLU was Founded by Communists

[goldcatt]

And the right to pursue and own earned property and the right of self defence isnt a civil right? It seems that the ACLU are the picky ones. Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union

This is what I love about these arguments. Tinfoil hatter nonsense aside, they fail based on their false premises.

Please show us where we are guaranteed the right to own anything. Property which we happen to own cannot be taken from us by the government without due process of law, that is a limitation on government power. But there is no guaranteed right to own anything.

As for pursuing property, you may do so to your heart's content. Whether you catch it is entirely up to how fast you can run in relation to whatever it is you're chasing. A society where you are guaranteed your chase will end in property ownership is called something much, much different than capitalism.

And did it ever occur to you that self-defense, being codified in all 50 States and on the Federal level, may be a goal that has been reached and therefore is no longer a priority? Of course not. That wouldn't demonize the people you despise.

Proof once again that base hatred knows no facts nor logic, eh?

Please show us where we are guaranteed the right to own anything.

Goildkatt I am deeply disappointed
The second amendment guarantee's us the right to keep and bear arms. Wouldn't a gun be proprety?

Sure, and if you are able to purchase one you have the right to keep it and bear it. What Publius here confuses is the right to keep and bear what you may happen to have the ability to own and choose to own with the right of every individual to in fact own a gun.

They are two very, very different things.

 

[Publius1787]

I amended my post before your reply:

Even the rights that Conservatives don't approve of, like civil rights.

And the right to pursue and own earned property and the right of self defence isnt a civil right? It seems that the ACLU are the picky ones. Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union

This is what I love about these arguments. Tinfoil hatter nonsense aside, they fail based on their false premises.

Please show us where we are guaranteed the right to own anything. Property which we happen to own cannot be taken from us by the government without due process of law, that is a limitation on government power. But there is no guaranteed right to own anything.

As for pursuing property, you may do so to your heart's content. Whether you catch it is entirely up to how fast you can run in relation to whatever it is you're chasing. A society where you are guaranteed your chase will end in property ownership is called something much, much different than capitalism.

And did it ever occur to you that self-defense, being codified in all 50 States and on the Federal level, may be a goal that has been reached and therefore is no longer a priority? Of course not. That wouldn't demonize the people you despise.

Proof once again that base hatred knows no facts nor logic, eh?

Dont mind these guys. They dont have anything to do with this country or what were talking about huh?

Be carful now. The ACLU does take select cases on property rights! If your homeless or an illegal immigrant than you have every right to your property according to the ACLU. HOMELESS PROPERTY: Judge sides with ACLU in destruction of homeless property suit - ktuu.com Oh, and you left out gun rights.

James Madison: It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.

James Madison: As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

James Madison: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

James Madison: A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

John Adams: Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.


Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

James Madison: "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thomas Jefferson Quoting Cesare Beccaria: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..."
Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."

George Mason: "To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them...
Alexander Hamilton: The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

Patrick Henry: "...the people have a right to keep and bear arms."
James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson: A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk.

Thomas Jefferson: For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.

Tench Coxe "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Tench Coxe: Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

 

[goldcatt]

And the right to pursue and own earned property and the right of self defence isnt a civil right? It seems that the ACLU are the picky ones. Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union

This is what I love about these arguments. Tinfoil hatter nonsense aside, they fail based on their false premises.

Please show us where we are guaranteed the right to own anything. Property which we happen to own cannot be taken from us by the government without due process of law, that is a limitation on government power. But there is no guaranteed right to own anything.

As for pursuing property, you may do so to your heart's content. Whether you catch it is entirely up to how fast you can run in relation to whatever it is you're chasing. A society where you are guaranteed your chase will end in property ownership is called something much, much different than capitalism.

And did it ever occur to you that self-defense, being codified in all 50 States and on the Federal level, may be a goal that has been reached and therefore is no longer a priority? Of course not. That wouldn't demonize the people you despise.

Proof once again that base hatred knows no facts nor logic, eh?

Dont mind these guys. They dont have anything to do with this country or what were talking about huh?

Be carful now. The ACLU does take select cases on property rights! If your homeless or an illegal immigrant than you have every right to your property according to the ACLU. HOMELESS PROPERTY: Judge sides with ACLU in destruction of homeless property suit - ktuu.com Oh, and you left out gun rights.

James Madison: It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.

James Madison: As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

James Madison: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

James Madison: A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

John Adams: Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

Irrelevant. You are attacking an organization that exists for the purpose of protecting civil liberties for not protecting the civil liberty - right - of property ownership.

Please show the constitutional provision where we are, as a guaranteed civil liberty, given the fundamental right to own anything.

Here's an example, under the 6th a person charged by the government with a crime has the right to be represented by counsel. That is a civil liberty. If he or she cannot afford the services of an attorney, one will be appointed and provided by the government so that their right to liberty will not be denied without representation.

Where's the deed for my government-supplied house? Where's my government-issued gun? Where's my government-issued car? Show me where I have the "right" to own anything as a civil liberty.

I'll wait.

 

[Publius1787]

This is what I love about these arguments. Tinfoil hatter nonsense aside, they fail based on their false premises.

Please show us where we are guaranteed the right to own anything. Property which we happen to own cannot be taken from us by the government without due process of law, that is a limitation on government power. But there is no guaranteed right to own anything.

As for pursuing property, you may do so to your heart's content. Whether you catch it is entirely up to how fast you can run in relation to whatever it is you're chasing. A society where you are guaranteed your chase will end in property ownership is called something much, much different than capitalism.

And did it ever occur to you that self-defense, being codified in all 50 States and on the Federal level, may be a goal that has been reached and therefore is no longer a priority? Of course not. That wouldn't demonize the people you despise.

Proof once again that base hatred knows no facts nor logic, eh?

Dont mind these guys. They dont have anything to do with this country or what were talking about huh?

Be carful now. The ACLU does take select cases on property rights! If your homeless or an illegal immigrant than you have every right to your property according to the ACLU. HOMELESS PROPERTY: Judge sides with ACLU in destruction of homeless property suit - ktuu.com Oh, and you left out gun rights.

James Madison: It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.

James Madison: As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

James Madison: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

James Madison: A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

John Adams: Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

Irrelevant. You are attacking an organization that exists for the purpose of protecting civil liberties for not protecting the civil liberty - right - of property ownership.

Please show the constitutional provision where we are, as a guaranteed civil liberty, given the fundamental right to own anything.

Here's an example, under the 6th a person charged by the government with a crime has the right to be represented by counsel. That is a civil liberty. If he or she cannot afford the services of an attorney, one will be appointed and provided by the government so that their right to liberty will not be denied without representation.

Where's the deed for my government-supplied house? Where's my government-issued gun? Where's my government-issued car? Show me where I have the "right" to own anything as a civil liberty.

I'll wait.

Property is an unaleinable right as viewed by the people who wrote the constitution and the declaration of independence. Property is just a tranfer of liberty from one form to another.

All of this is property!

1. I have the right to think and thus ....
2. I have the right to act upon my thoughts so as long as my actions do not harm othe lives or liberties of others and thus ....
3. I have the right to agree to associate or not associate with others and thus ....
4. I have the right to seek employment from others and thus ...
5. I have the right to agree or disagree to the terms of employment and thus ....
6. Once I agree to labor for others (or myself) the property I have in my thoughts is transfered in to the property I have in my actions which is traded for the property of the employer based upon the terms we agreeed to and thus ...
7. I have transfered the property I have in my thoughts and actions wich few recognise in to monetary property that many recognise which can be turned in to physical property upon agree ment of a sale.

You have no right to take the property I have in my thoughts just as you have no right to take the property I have monetairly UNLESSS government uses the property I have in my income as a fee for defending the natural rights and liberties that we all are entitled to. Any use otherwise only restricts the rights and natural liberties of some or most in order to give unnatural rights and privilages to others. Natural rights cannot be voted away by a majority. Furthermore, I fail to see where it is constitutional to do so.

Now we can go in to arguements about Article one Section 8 and we can talk about the 5th Amendment. But this is not the thread to do so. That descussion is here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ty-be-subject-to-the-needs-of-the-masses.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is what I love about these arguments. Tinfoil hatter nonsense aside, they fail based on their false premises.

Please show us where we are guaranteed the right to own anything. Property which we happen to own cannot be taken from us by the government without due process of law, that is a limitation on government power. But there is no guaranteed right to own anything.

As for pursuing property, you may do so to your heart's content. Whether you catch it is entirely up to how fast you can run in relation to whatever it is you're chasing. A society where you are guaranteed your chase will end in property ownership is called something much, much different than capitalism.

And did it ever occur to you that self-defense, being codified in all 50 States and on the Federal level, may be a goal that has been reached and therefore is no longer a priority? Of course not. That wouldn't demonize the people you despise.

Proof once again that base hatred knows no facts nor logic, eh?

Please show us where we are guaranteed the right to own anything.

Goildkatt I am deeply disappointed
The second amendment guarantee's us the right to keep and bear arms. Wouldn't a gun be proprety?

Sure, and if you are able to purchase one you have the right to keep it and bear it. What Publius here confuses is the right to keep and bear what you may happen to have the ability to own and choose to own with the right of every individual to in fact own a gun.

They are two very, very different things.

Some Guns are dirt cheap you can get a 9mm as cheap as 135.00

 

[goldcatt]

Dont mind these guys. They dont have anything to do with this country or what were talking about huh?

Be carful now. The ACLU does take select cases on property rights! If your homeless or an illegal immigrant than you have every right to your property according to the ACLU. HOMELESS PROPERTY: Judge sides with ACLU in destruction of homeless property suit - ktuu.com Oh, and you left out gun rights.

James Madison: It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.

James Madison: As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

James Madison: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

James Madison: A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

John Adams: Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

Irrelevant. You are attacking an organization that exists for the purpose of protecting civil liberties for not protecting the civil liberty - right - of property ownership.

Please show the constitutional provision where we are, as a guaranteed civil liberty, given the fundamental right to own anything.

Here's an example, under the 6th a person charged by the government with a crime has the right to be represented by counsel. That is a civil liberty. If he or she cannot afford the services of an attorney, one will be appointed and provided by the government so that their right to liberty will not be denied without representation.

Where's the deed for my government-supplied house? Where's my government-issued gun? Where's my government-issued car? Show me where I have the "right" to own anything as a civil liberty.

I'll wait.

Property is an unaleinable right as viewed by the people who wrote the constitution and the declaration of independence. Property is just a tranfer of liberty from one form to another.

All of this is property!

1. I have the right to think and thus ....
2. I have the right to act upon my thoughts so as long as my actions do not harm othe lives or liberties of others and thus ....
3. I have the right to agree to associate or not associate with others and thus ....
4. I have the right to seek employment from others and thus ...
5. I have the right to agree or disagree to the terms of employment and thus ....
6. Once I agree to labor for others (or myself) the property I have in my thoughts is transfered in to the property I have in my actions which is traded for the property of the employer based upon the terms we agreeed to and thus ...
7. I have transfered the property I have in my thoughts and actions wich few recognise in to monetary property that many recognise which can be turned in to physical property upon agree ment of a sale.

You have no right to take the property I have in my thoughts just as you have no right to take the property I have monetairly UNLESSS government uses the property I have in my income as a fee for defending the natural rights and liberties that we all are entitled to. Any use otherwise only restricts the rights and natural liberties of some or most in order to give unnatural rights and privilages to others. Natural rights cannot be voted away by a majority. Furthermore, I fail to see where it is constitutional to do so.

Now we can go in to arguements about Article one Section 8 and we can talk about the 5th Amendment. But this is not the thread to do so. That descussion is here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ty-be-subject-to-the-needs-of-the-masses.html

None of which is based in law Nor is it a response to my question. Most important, it does not address the basis of your attack on an organization dedicated to defense of guaranteed civil liberties.

Clue: They don't give a flying rat's ass what you, personally, say "should" be a right. They defend civil liberties as defined objectively by law, enforced by the State. That is their function.

So I repeat my question, where is the enforceable constitutional provision giving me or any one of us the "right" to own property as a civil liberty?

Thoughts are not property. Speech is not property. If you don't know the difference you have more serious problems than believing that piece of nonsense in the OP is real because it was on the interwebz.

 

[Charles_Main]

ACLU is an outstanding organization dedicate to protecting our Constitutional rights.....

How UN- AMERICAN

Yes, they are dedicated to Constitutional Rights. If the person they are defending is Liberal Enough.

 

[goldcatt]

Goildkatt I am deeply disappointed
The second amendment guarantee's us the right to keep and bear arms. Wouldn't a gun be proprety?

Sure, and if you are able to purchase one you have the right to keep it and bear it. What Publius here confuses is the right to keep and bear what you may happen to have the ability to own and choose to own with the right of every individual to in fact own a gun.

They are two very, very different things.

Some Guns are dirt cheap you can get a 9mm as cheap as 135.00

Then if you are able to afford the $135 you can buy yourself a gun. See how easy that is?

But nobody is guaranteed, as a civil liberty, the right to $135 to be able to do it. That's the difference.

 

[goldcatt]

ACLU is an outstanding organization dedicate to protecting our Constitutional rights.....

How UN- AMERICAN

Yes, they are dedicated to Constitutional Rights. If the person they are defending is Liberal Enough.

FOXNews.com - ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

 

[shintao]

Like what? If anything the ACLU is for all rights except the right to property or the right to defend your life/property (Gun rights) Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union . Unless, of course, you are homeless your an illegal immigrant.

I amended my post before your reply:

Even the rights that Conservatives don't approve of, like civil rights.

And the right to pursue and own earned property and the right of self defence isnt a civil right? It seems that the ACLU are the picky ones. Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union

The right of taxation is a government right to take your property for society. Got a problem with that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure, and if you are able to purchase one you have the right to keep it and bear it. What Publius here confuses is the right to keep and bear what you may happen to have the ability to own and choose to own with the right of every individual to in fact own a gun.

They are two very, very different things.

Some Guns are dirt cheap you can get a 9mm as cheap as 135.00

Then if you are able to afford the $135 you can buy yourself a gun. See how easy that is?

But nobody is guaranteed, as a civil liberty, the right to $135 to be able to do it. That's the difference.

But once you have it then it's yours the government cannot take it away. You can however give that right away. If you commit a crime worthy of that. But I do understand the point you are getting at I'm just yanking your chain.

 

[goldcatt]

Some Guns are dirt cheap you can get a 9mm as cheap as 135.00

Then if you are able to afford the $135 you can buy yourself a gun. See how easy that is?

But nobody is guaranteed, as a civil liberty, the right to $135 to be able to do it. That's the difference.

But once you have it then it's yours the government cannot take it away. You can however give that right away. If you commit a crime worthy of that. But I do understand the point you are getting at I'm just yanking your chain.

I know.

And the right to keep property of all types that you happen to own is a fundamental liberty. Government at all levels is prohibited from taking anyone's property without due process of law. But the limitation on taking and guaranteeing ownership in the first place are two different things.

If the right doesn't exist, why is it a problem that a group dedicated to defending rights doesn't make it a priority?

I know you're not the one who made that argument. But it's worth repeating the distinction to drive home the point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then if you are able to afford the $135 you can buy yourself a gun. See how easy that is?

But nobody is guaranteed, as a civil liberty, the right to $135 to be able to do it. That's the difference.

But once you have it then it's yours the government cannot take it away. You can however give that right away. If you commit a crime worthy of that. But I do understand the point you are getting at I'm just yanking your chain.

I know.

And the right to keep property of all types that you happen to own is a fundamental liberty. Government at all levels is prohibited from taking anyone's property without due process of law. But the limitation on taking and guaranteeing ownership in the first place are two different things.

If the right doesn't exist, why is it a problem that a group dedicated to defending rights doesn't make it a priority?

I know you're not the one who made that argument. But it's worth repeating the distinction to drive home the point.

SEE!!!!!!! So what was the argument for? Why must we fight all the time? Why can't we all just get along?

 

[goldcatt]

But once you have it then it's yours the government cannot take it away. You can however give that right away. If you commit a crime worthy of that. But I do understand the point you are getting at I'm just yanking your chain.

I know.

And the right to keep property of all types that you happen to own is a fundamental liberty. Government at all levels is prohibited from taking anyone's property without due process of law. But the limitation on taking and guaranteeing ownership in the first place are two different things.

If the right doesn't exist, why is it a problem that a group dedicated to defending rights doesn't make it a priority?

I know you're not the one who made that argument. But it's worth repeating the distinction to drive home the point.

SEE!!!!!!! So what was the argument for? Why must we fight all the time? Why can't we all just get along?

Sacrilege! This is a political message board. We're supposed to fight. And if there's nothing worth fighting about, we're supposed to make shit up and call each other nasty names and stuff.

Eh, what the hell. What kinda beer you got?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know.

And the right to keep property of all types that you happen to own is a fundamental liberty. Government at all levels is prohibited from taking anyone's property without due process of law. But the limitation on taking and guaranteeing ownership in the first place are two different things.

If the right doesn't exist, why is it a problem that a group dedicated to defending rights doesn't make it a priority?

I know you're not the one who made that argument. But it's worth repeating the distinction to drive home the point.

SEE!!!!!!! So what was the argument for? Why must we fight all the time? Why can't we all just get along?

Sacrilege! This is a political message board. We're supposed to fight. And if there's nothing worth fighting about, we're supposed to make shit up and call each other nasty names and stuff.

Eh, what the hell. What kinda beer you got?

I'm drinking some freshly made white stuff..... for medical purposes.

 

[goldcatt]

SEE!!!!!!! So what was the argument for? Why must we fight all the time? Why can't we all just get along?

Sacrilege! This is a political message board. We're supposed to fight. And if there's nothing worth fighting about, we're supposed to make shit up and call each other nasty names and stuff.

Eh, what the hell. What kinda beer you got?

I'm drinking some freshly made white stuff..... for medical purposes.

Suuuuuure. That's what they all say.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sacrilege! This is a political message board. We're supposed to fight. And if there's nothing worth fighting about, we're supposed to make shit up and call each other nasty names and stuff.

Eh, what the hell. What kinda beer you got?

I'm drinking some freshly made white stuff..... for medical purposes.

Suuuuuure. That's what they all say.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[rightwinger]

Real Americans understand that our civil liberties are our most cherished rights as citizens..


So does the the ACLU

 

[Publius1787]

I know.

And the right to keep property of all types that you happen to own is a fundamental liberty. Government at all levels is prohibited from taking anyone's property without due process of law. But the limitation on taking and guaranteeing ownership in the first place are two different things.

If the right doesn't exist, why is it a problem that a group dedicated to defending rights doesn't make it a priority?

I know you're not the one who made that argument. But it's worth repeating the distinction to drive home the point.

SEE!!!!!!! So what was the argument for? Why must we fight all the time? Why can't we all just get along?

Sacrilege! This is a political message board. We're supposed to fight. And if there's nothing worth fighting about, we're supposed to make shit up and call each other nasty names and stuff.

Eh, what the hell. What kinda beer you got?

Anyone who knows what argument is knows that it has nothing to do with fighting.

 

[Publius1787]

Real Americans understand that our civil liberties are our most cherished rights as citizens..


So does the the ACLU

Except for property or the right to defend our lives and property. Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union Tha ACLU doesent recognise that.