Attacks on first and second amendments are becoming more and more brazen. Five years ago the man running for president mocked those who would wish to keep their first and second amendment rights. Today we have law makers actually seeking to almost ban some of those rights.
What is wrong with the Constitution? Why should it be rewritten, modified, ignored or thrown away?
Georgia Democrat lawmaker wants to limit the first amendment by not allowing people to make fun of others. I highly doubt he ever had a problem with the future president making fun of and mocking those who cling to their guns and Bibles.
Missouri wants to make all assault weapon or large capacity magazine illegal. If that doesn't sound so bad then you need to come back to reality. Those are loose definitions and could easily be changed at a later date. Just about every time the post office raises it's rates it would be time to redefine large capacity to something smaller than it was before.
A lobbying and policy group was the bar we were using. Not equivalent. I see where you are going with this, but they are not interchangeable ideas.
Westboro isn't working toward any public policy objective. They're a family of lawyers trying to get shut-down or sued so they can make money off of it. So far, its working.
That they offend 99% of the population isn't a 'problem' ... its their goal.
Which group is going to go after the Patriot Act regarding things such as what books your get from the library or what you look at on your ocmputer? The ACLU, Westboro or the NRA?
Which group is going to protect a gay couple having sex in their own home from governmental laws? The ACLU, Westboro, or the NRA?
Which group is going(well supposed to) protect you to be able to practice any religion in your own home? The ACLU, Westbor or the NRA.
The answer to all three is the ACLU.
Who are you going to first turn to with concerns of police coming into your home to look at your guns? The ACLU, Westboro or the NRA?
Who are you going to get to protect you from the government telling you how many guns you can have in your home? The ACLU, Westbor or the NRA?
The answer to both is the NRA
Westboro is a church, that is mostly one family, that pickets funerals and is anti gay. I really don't know what I would turn to them to do for me.
So, we go back to Jonas, his priority was keeping the cops and government out of his home. I used those words to ask about the ACLU, as I have here had to spell out why I would say the ACLU.
Your question removed the cops and government, changing the question to fit your need, then you even then inserted a group that I still cannot grasp at what I would ask them to do. Despite your hatred of the ACLU, what they at least try to do is in line with the actual discussion. Your hatred of them doesn't make them Westboro, just as someones hatred of the NRA doesn't make them Westboro. Either way, the NRA and the ACLU are groups with goals that are distinctly different than Westboro.
You didn't create a mad lib, you derailed the thread and the idea of my question with something completely different. Slight of hand, misdirection if you will.
I never understood why checking-out books from a public library had any expectation of privacy for anybody. You're renting books from the government. I'd figure they'd have access to what you took.
The ACLU is a left-leaning group. Yes, they're outspoken about library books, gay sex and religious minorities. They're very often MIA when the 'oppressed' isn't in one of their chosen groups, though. Honestly, I can't take seriously a civil rights organization that is completely silent on the 2nd amendment. They pick-and-choose which rights they'll fight for ... and they pick-and-choose 'oppressed' subgroups that qualify. It isn't about civil liberties, its about ideology.
I'm a libertarian on most things, so I don't always disagree with the ACLU. Even where I disagree ... I could at least get behind the mission statement if they didn't completely ignore rights, and 'groups', that I value.
Their second amendment position is a collective rather than individual right. Basically, they agreed with the supreme court pre- Heller. So their silence is consistent with their official position on it. They do go up against local ordinances when they think there is a rights issue.
I just checked into some of this. It's hard to prove a negative, but I clicked on the first 6 links of a Google search on "home bible study violation aclu," just to see if it's true that the ACLU now has a stance of defending religious observance in one's own home. The term ACLU was in the comments, where people were saying snide remarks about the ACLU's lack of concerns. Since I can't find evidence that the ACLU is now on the side of private religious observance, I'll assume they still aren't.
It would be odd to expect the NRA to help with such things, since it's not their stated mission to do things that have nothing to do with guns. It is the ACLU's, but we didn't really expect them to start being friendly to religious freedom, I'm sure.
(I guess I should point out that the links I found were to articles about people who've been charged, fined, or jailed for holding religious studies in their homes without government permission.)
Well, their official position is very pro religious freedom. And historically, they tend to make pretty good on what they publish as positions. Whether they define religious freedom the same way you do, might be another question.
I define religious freedom as, among other things, freedom to practice religion. I can well believe they have other interests.
I can't confirm that they make good on their stated positions. They have a stated position of supporting free speech; as I recounted in an earlier post in this thread, they've shown strong and effective hostility to free speech when the content was opposed to abortion.
My first thought was 535 members of congress who's only prerequisites are to be a citizen of age of the state you are representing seems like a bad idea today. Should our law makers be held to a higher standard? There are other issues here but what are your thoughts on that?
"That will never happen"
Now American citizens can be involuntarily held in a mental hospital for two days and then authorities come to their door and take their guns away from them. If she was in such a bad condition that she had to be involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital how can she be diagnosed and treated in just two days? I'm sure our liberal friends will refuse to see any way this can be abused as long as there is a Democrat in the White House.
1. What are you talking about? I'm not familiar and genuinely asking.
2. Based on your description I can see lots of ways for it to be abused, regardless of who is in the White House. But I want to know more.
I forgot to add the link. I hope that doesn't put me on the list.