And if they are suppost to be defending the constitution why don't they take on all amendments? Like the 2nd because it conflicts with the leftist beliefs

 

Right or wrong, the ACLU interprets the 2nd Amendment as being a collective right and not an individual one, so laws related to individual gun rights are unlikely to be viewed as unconstitutional to the ACLU.

Right or wrong, the ACLU interprets the 2nd Amendment as being a collective right and not an individual one, so laws related to individual gun rights are unlikely to be viewed as unconstitutional to the ACLU.

In regards to how they don't represent gun owners, that is pretty much what I said. They take a very narrow view of the second amendment, but yet interpret all sorts of deeper meanings into the others that sometimes make you wonder what they are smoking.

Fair enough. I was only pointing out that they don't ignore the 2nd amendment.

Remington 12 and 20 gauge that are the only guns I use regularly. I also have a .22 and a thirty-aught-six or however you type that out that I haven't gotten a chance to shoot yet.

Cool! I also have a 12 gauge, plus an old .410/.22 over-under that we used to use when deer hunting occasionally. I haven't hunted in a few years, though, so they don't see too much action any more. This gets more action on the range, or at my in-laws acreage:

 

 

It is a Baretta, similar to the sidearm that the US Armed Forces use. (stock picture, for some reason, mine isn't as shiny, despite good care) It doesn't feel as 'strong' as my dad's .45, but it is easy to shoot and feels very comfortable.

The most shooting I do is of clay pigeons, but I have deer hunted the last 4 years, (2-4) and pheasant hunted once.

Not exactly on the topic of this lawsuit, but I figured people would enjoy it. Australian Reporter has a bit of fun with the Phelps clan.

Heads, get outta here with them facts. We all know the ACLU only supports extremely left-wing child molesters and violent criminal because they hate America and everything good in the world.

 

I don't think its been mentioned yet, but cheers to the Patriot Guard Riders for sheilding the families from the WBC clowns.

 

the World Baseball Classic??????

If that were the case, why do they never defend gun owners who feel their civil rights are violated? Because they have an agenda. That is why they interpret the second amendment with a much 'softer' stance than they do all the rest. If the applied the same standards to gun rights as they do to the supposed 'sepration of church and state', they would be advocating mandatory gun ownership for all. Also, I believe it was brought up earllier that the ACLU has to be asked first, otherwise they can file amicus curiae briefs (I think that's what they are called) in support of positions it favors, but was not asked to help.

 

Part of their "agenda" is giving a voice to those that don't have one. We have a very powerful gun lobby in this country.

 

When the lowest are protected, we are all protected. I can't stand those idiots, but if they are allowed their free speech rights, I sleep better at night knowing you and I can debate and not worry about who is in power and the secret thought police knocking down our doors.

 

Heads, add me to that list.

I agree that the Republicans have moved to the right, but disagree that the Dems are not moving towards the left. Howard Dean's representation of the party certainly suggests that it is. The financial backing of Ned Lamont by Soros and Streisand, in an attempt to overthrow a former Dem VP candidate because he supports the Iraq War, is further evidence.

 

Over half of Lamont's money raised came from Connecticut. Only 20% of Lieberman's did. The "Soros/Streisand" argument holds no water.

 

Found 1 case good for you.

Wasn't hard to find. It was the case you brought up.

Over half of Lamont's money raised came from Connecticut. Only 20% of Lieberman's did. The "Soros/Streisand" argument holds no water.

 

It only "holds no water" if one solely focuses on WHERE the money came from, rather than WHO. Soros and Streisand (the far left) contributed significantly to Lamont's campaign. Google it if you don't believe me.

Whoopdeespiff. If Soros and Streisand contributed, good for them. It's nice to see private citizens taking an interest in public affairs. On the whole, Lamont's campaign is more small money than big - and Lieberman's campaign is more out of state money than in state money.

Whoopdeespiff. If Soros and Streisand contributed, good for them. It's nice to see private citizens taking an interest in public affairs. On the whole, Lamont's campaign is more small money than big - and Lieberman's campaign is more out of state money than in state money.

 

So, my assertion that the left wing of the Democratic party is funding Lamont is true. Thanks for proving my point.

George Soros and Barbara Streisand does not constitute the "left wing of the party." And what does it matter? The "Soros/Streisand" department of the Democratic Party doesn't even live in CT, so what they fund doesn't matter. The people who throw Lieberman under the bus have to actually vote for Lamont. Those people live in CT - and moderates are breaking for Lamont, not Lieberman. Lamont is no left-winger by any means.

George Soros and Barbara Streisand does not constitute the "left wing of the party." And what does it matter? The "Soros/Streisand" department of the Democratic Party doesn't even live in CT, so what they fund doesn't matter. The people who throw Lieberman under the bus have to actually vote for Lamont. Those people live in CT - and moderates are breaking for Lamont, not Lieberman. Lamont is no left-winger by any means.

 

So, the money that Soros and Streisand give to Lamont's campaign "doesn't matter"? That's absolute crap and you know it. That money does a lot more for his campaign than hundreds of votes from CT Democrats could.

 

Soros and Streisand both contribute a ton of money to left-wing causes. While Lamont is not a left-winger per se, he's a means to unseat a "right-wing" Democrat, which is pretty much the same in their eyes.

Actually Lamont is a millionaire who could self-finance his campaign. So yeah, Soros/Streisand matters very little. Especially Streisand.

Actually Lamont is a millionaire who could self-finance his campaign. So yeah, Soros/Streisand matters very little. Especially Streisand.

 

Streisand contributes so much to the Dems that she had personal meetings with Bill Clinton back when he was running for re-election. So, yeah, she contributes A LOT. And Soros contributes vastly more.

 

The fact that somebody is rich doesn't mean that they're going to blow it all on a campaign Katherine Harris-style. The Bush family are millionaires and they didn't finance their own campaigns. Billionaires (Ross Perot, Steve Forbes) are the only ones who tend to do that because it won't drain a signficant amount of their bank accounts.

Take a look at Jon Corzine. Here's a guy that raised some money from people in his party and when they called in "favors," he basically told them it wasn't going to happen and shut down the state government in NJ to get a budget that he thought was adequate for the state.

So, the money that Soros and Streisand give to Lamont's campaign "doesn't matter"? That's absolute crap and you know it. That money does a lot more for his campaign than hundreds of votes from CT Democrats could.

 

Soros and Streisand both contribute a ton of money to left-wing causes. While Lamont is not a left-winger per se, he's a means to unseat a "right-wing" Democrat, which is pretty much the same in their eyes.

 

 

Soros got his ass handed to him in the last election trying to get Kerry elected. It was VERY satisfying to see him get his ass handed to him........not to metion a 25 million dollar bill.......in a losing effort.