PDA

View Full Version : Civil rights violations?


Purple K
08-09-2010, 9:04 AM
Now that gun ownership and use has been affirmed as a civil right, could these large contributions by the Joyce Foundation and others be considered civil rights violations/attacks? Could we sue them to stop the contributions? Could they be charged with conspiracy? Maybe we could use the RICO act against the Bradys, Joyce Found. and others? Let's put them on the defensive for a change.

nicki
08-09-2010, 10:35 AM
This is something the left did to the Ku Klu Klan.

If this is a viable option, can we take action only from the time of the Helle/MacDonald cases or can we actually go back in time.

The problem is we have to show some damages and that is where the tricky part will be.

Nicki

BlindRacer
08-09-2010, 10:40 AM
I sure hope there could be recourse. A group that is dedicated to destroying the civil rights of citizens of the USA should not be able to have a voice.

The KKK was a group that was dedicated to destroying the civil rights of black (and other) citizens of the USA. I think that they are allowed to exist, because there is the 1A, but they can't cause actual damage toward citizens by taking rights.

Unfortunately, like the KKK, anti gun groups are very large, and there are millions of people who side with them. And I don't see any time soon where it will become shameful to side with the anti gunners, like it did with siding with the KKK.


I hope that there can be suits brought against groups who have actually restricted rights of citizens.

BlindRacer
08-09-2010, 10:42 AM
This is something the left did to the Ku Klu Klan.

If this is a viable option, can we take action only from the time of the Helle/MacDonald cases or can we actually go back in time.

The problem is we have to show some damages and that is where the tricky part will be.

Nicki

I don't know the specific history, but weren't most KKK members democrat?

Muzz
08-09-2010, 10:42 AM
We can dream...but sometimes dreams do come true. Wouldn't that be nice?

POLICESTATE
08-09-2010, 10:59 AM
I think the ACLU needs to man up and fight for our civil 2A rights right here in California. Regardless of their personal views of firearms.

BlindRacer
08-09-2010, 1:09 PM
First KKK of 1865 - 'conservative Democrats'
- As a secret vigilante group, the Klan reacted against Radical Republican control of Reconstruction by attempting to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. - wiki

- In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523692/posts

Second KKK of 1915
- doesn't say what political affiliation, but claimed approximately 4-5 million men as members.

Third KKK of 1950's and 60's
- Today, they estimate between 5k to 8k members nationwide


Also, in my search to find out more, I came across this interesting link...
The True History of the Democratic Racist Party.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523692/posts

Here's a little snipit
"Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it."

It seems that the democrats only became the party for civil rights when it was politically valuable to them. However, their actions have not done much for true civil rights.

curtisfong
08-09-2010, 1:22 PM
freerepublic

Err. ok.


It seems that [party x] only became the [party for y] when it was politically valuable to them. However, their actions have not done much for [z]

Fixed it for you.

BlindRacer
08-09-2010, 1:32 PM
If you would have read the link, then you would have realized something very valuable.

Maybe try this one...it talks about evil republicans, so you might like it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1499184/posts

BlindRacer
08-09-2010, 1:42 PM
[QUOTE=curtisfong;4753312]Err. ok.

Is there something wrong with the information in that link? It's just what came up in a google search. Sounds like you really hate that site for some reason, but again, is there incorrect information?

curtisfong
08-09-2010, 1:59 PM
You are mistaking me for a partisan. I have limited patience for partisans of all flavors.

POLICESTATE
08-09-2010, 2:30 PM
It seems that the democrats only became the party for civil rights when it was politically valuable to them. However, their actions have not done much for true civil rights.

+100

No one seems to realize what the history of the democratic party is really like. Not that the republicans are much better, just different :rolleyes:

BlindRacer
08-09-2010, 3:48 PM
You are mistaking me for a partisan. I have limited patience for partisans of all flavors.

I am not partisan either, however, most of the time I will vote republican, and would NEVER vote democrat. I consider myself a conservative, and side with the republicans about 98% of the time. The other 2% is when they act more like democrats/liberals.

It's just interesting that the republican party was created specifically for the purpose of being anti slavery, as opposed to the democrats who wanted expanded slavery. Yet we're told today by the democrats, that it's the other way around.

Vox
08-09-2010, 4:11 PM
You are mistaking me for a partisan. I have limited patience for partisans of all flavors.

"I'm an extreme moderate, Mr. Rutledge. I believe anybody not in favor of moderation and compromise ought to be castrated"

Vox
08-09-2010, 4:13 PM
I am not partisan... however I would NEVER vote democrat.

You're ridiculous is what you are.

What exactly do you think a partisan is?

curtisfong
08-09-2010, 4:13 PM
"I'm an extreme moderate, Mr. Rutledge. I believe anybody not in favor of moderation and compromise ought to be castrated"

Perfectly stated!

Vox
08-09-2010, 4:59 PM
on the other hand one of my other favorite quotes is "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Lulfas
08-09-2010, 5:02 PM
Is there something wrong with the information in that link? It's just what came up in a google search. Sounds like you really hate that site for some reason, but again, is there incorrect information?

Freeperland is an extreme political site. Take anything you read there with a large grain of salt. Quoting from there is generally a bad idea for making points.

BlindRacer
08-10-2010, 8:50 AM
Freeperland is an extreme political site. Take anything you read there with a large grain of salt. Quoting from there is generally a bad idea for making points.

Noted, however, those links were mostly lists of facts, and didn't seem to contain much, if any, opinion.

Were these links read, or were they passed over because of the site they were linking to?


Anyways, this got way to far away from the original post. So, what may happen to all these anti gun groups? 5, 10, 20 years from now? Will they eventually die out? Could there be charges against anyone of them, and if so, for what reasons?

yellowfin
08-10-2010, 9:54 AM
Unfortunately, like the KKK, anti gun groups are very large, and there are millions of people who side with them. And I don't see any time soon where it will become shameful to side with the anti gunners, like it did with siding with the KKK.It can be made to be VERY shameful if we make their side known for what it really is. We just need to do more Suzanna Hupp type stuff in a sort of BBB/consumer review fashion pointing out that they're defective and harmful. Anti gun groups are basically sociological and political pollution.

PEBKAC
08-10-2010, 2:12 PM
I am not partisan either, however, most of the time I will vote republican, and would NEVER vote democrat.
Good to see you still have a job with LCAV, Big Brother Ezra. (http://www.popehat.com/2010/08/10/actual-comments-from-actual-forums/) :)

nick
08-10-2010, 2:59 PM
Good to see you still have a job with LCAV, Big Brother Ezra. (http://www.popehat.com/2010/08/10/actual-comments-from-actual-forums/) :)

Peeping Tom watching Peeping Tom. My head hurts :p

jdberger
08-10-2010, 10:52 PM
Well, isn't that amusing!

Ezra - you're welcome to join the conversation, here. We're interested in your point of view. All we ask is that you discuss the issues respectfully. A little bit of snark is probably inevitable - but we'll forgive you if you forgive us. ;)

If you're intersted in what's going to happen to LCAV and similar organizations...gosh, I don't know. I figured that I'd go see if Morris Dees wrote anything about putting the Klan out of business... :)

383green
08-10-2010, 11:19 PM
Huh? Who's who now? I did not get the impression that our BlindRacer = the Ezra at PEBKAC's link, since Ezra there appeared to be quoting something seen on another site as an example of a particularly silly thing to say rather than making the comment himself. Nor did I get the impression that either the linked Ezra or our BlindRacer is the Ezra we know to be associated with LCAV. :confused:

socalblue
08-11-2010, 12:50 AM
LCAV & the other anti-2A organizations are very careful to spend their $$ so that they do not get dragged into court. Clearly some of the things they do are borderline, but what isn't in todays shady world of politics?

My hope (OK, it's delusional but allow me to dream) would be that these folks come to the realization that the 2A is a right, same as the 1st (IE: not going away). Further that they work with groups such as the NRA to develop & fund a firearms safety program for all schools. Such a program would clearly be of far greater benefit that anything they could otherwise hope to accomplish.

383green
08-11-2010, 12:55 AM
My hope (OK, it's delusional but allow me to dream) would be that these folks come to the realization that the 2A is a right, same as the 1st (IE: not going away). Further that they work with groups such as the NRA to develop & fund a firearms safety program for all schools. Such a program would clearly be of far greater benefit that anything they could otherwise hope to accomplish.


That would be a reasonable course of action for them if their goals had anything to do with protecting rights or encouraging safety. Gun control isn't about guns; it's about control.

jdberger
08-11-2010, 7:53 AM
Popehat Ezra = LCAV Ezra.

BlindRacer
08-11-2010, 8:50 AM
I don't get what I said that is leading you to believe that I'm this Ezra person, can you please explain?

And are you guys serious that you think I'm Ezra?

yellowfin
08-11-2010, 8:54 AM
I guess you're Better than Ezra, then?

BlindRacer
08-11-2010, 9:11 AM
I guess you're Better than Ezra, then?

I'm really lost. All I could find out about this Ezra guy on google was that he was in charge of the 17th anniversary dinner for the lcav...and made some comment about protesters on his facebook page.

What comparison is being drawn between him and me? Who is this guy?

BlindRacer
08-11-2010, 9:18 AM
I am not partisan either, however, most of the time I will vote republican, and would NEVER vote democrat. I consider myself a conservative, and side with the republicans about 98% of the time. The other 2% is when they act more like democrats/liberals.

And since some of you are having a problem with this, let me explain a little further.

I am a Conservative Christian. Nothing the democrat party has ever said appeals to me, my beliefs, or how I think this country should be. I do not side with the republicans on many issues, because they are too liberal minded to me. However, I generally will only vote for the candidate that has the best chance, who is closest to my beliefs, which ends up being republican most of the time.

The 'party' I would put myself into is Constitutional Conservative. And in that, I would be partisan.

383green
08-11-2010, 9:25 AM
I do not think that our BlindRacer is Ezra; rather, I think that Ezra reads Calguns and quoted BlindRacer on his blog.

So, will the real Ezra have the stones to step forward here? Or will he just continue to hide in the shadows? :whistling:

BlindRacer
08-11-2010, 9:26 AM
What did I say that got quoted, and where?

BlindRacer
08-11-2010, 9:32 AM
Ok, somehow, I totally missed that link that was posted.

383green
08-11-2010, 9:32 AM
What did I say that got quoted, and where?

You said:

I am not partisan either, however, most of the time I will vote republican, and would NEVER vote democrat.


and it got quoted here (http://www.popehat.com/2010/08/10/actual-comments-from-actual-forums/).

I am pleased that Ezra and I agree that Calguns is a fun nook and/or cranny of the Internet. :D

BlindRacer
08-11-2010, 9:37 AM
Yeah, I got quoted.

I don't see anything wrong with my comment, if it's read in context.

I believe that anything from moderate and left is going to destroy this country. I keep my choices on the right, and preferably more conservative. I don't vote by party. Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, etc. However, most of the time, the only one that has a chance is Republican, so I do end up voting republican most of the time.

Like I said, in context, I think there's nothing wrong with my comment.

383green
08-11-2010, 9:41 AM
But... but... how could a fair and balanced journalism site like Ezra's blog report something out of context?! :rofl2:

PEBKAC
08-11-2010, 9:58 AM
I was kind of directing my comment at the ethereal Ezra we all know is watching while at the same time providing an explanation (the link) of the otherwise completely bizarre comment. In retrospect quoting the quoted line in question was not required.

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused with my terribly constructed post. :p

BlindRacer
08-11-2010, 10:01 AM
No problem, I find it funny that I was quoted like that...I forwarded it to my family and friends. :)

I know what I believe, and I'm not ashamed of it. I probably could have worded that quoted portion better, and maybe had a deeper explanation in that same post, but whatever.

GM4spd
08-11-2010, 10:05 AM
Now that gun ownership and use has been affirmed as a civil right, could these large contributions by the Joyce Foundation and others be considered civil rights violations/attacks? Could we sue them to stop the contributions? Could they be charged with conspiracy? Maybe we could use the RICO act against the Bradys, Joyce Found. and others? Let's put them on the defensive for a change.

Unbelievable.

choprzrul
08-11-2010, 10:06 AM
This is something the left did to the Ku Klu Klan.

If this is a viable option, can we take action only from the time of the Helle/MacDonald cases or can we actually go back in time.

The problem is we have to show some damages and that is where the tricky part will be.
Nicki

Enough partisan crap. Back on subject.

Per bold above: I think that it will be quite simple to show damages. Stop and think about how many people get denied on CCW apps. Now, of those who are denied, it only takes 1 to get hurt or killed. Now you have a situation where a CLEO denied the applicant his/her fundamental rights and the applicant or surviving family has suffered harm/damages because of their actions (or lack of action??).

I really think that the above scenario could be a very good get rich quick scheme. Apply for CCW, get denied, go for a walk after dark daily until you get mugged, sue the pants off of the CLEO that denied your CCW. Of course, this is a bad plan if you end up getting killed.:(

.

choprzrul
08-11-2010, 10:10 AM
Now that gun ownership and use has been affirmed as a civil right, could these large contributions by the Joyce Foundation and others be considered civil rights violations/attacks? Could we sue them to stop the contributions? Could they be charged with conspiracy? Maybe we could use the RICO act against the Bradys, Joyce Found. and others? Let's put them on the defensive for a change.

Perhaps a class action lawsuit on behalf of every gun owner? Name all of the above as defendants?

Sounds good to me:)

.

Lulfas
08-11-2010, 10:14 AM
Now that gun ownership and use has been affirmed as a civil right, could these large contributions by the Joyce Foundation and others be considered civil rights violations/attacks? Could we sue them to stop the contributions? Could they be charged with conspiracy? Maybe we could use the RICO act against the Bradys, Joyce Found. and others? Let's put them on the defensive for a change.

Here's the problem with it.

Now that gay marriage and use has been affirmed as a civil right, could these large contributions by the Mormon Church and others be considered civil rights violations/attacks? Could we sue them to stop the contributions? Could they be charged with conspiracy? Maybe we could use the RICO act against the Republicans, Tea Partiers. and others? Let's put them on the defensive for a change.

Purple K
10-01-2010, 9:00 PM
It can be made to be VERY shameful if we make their side known for what it really is. We just need to do more Suzanna Hupp type stuff in a sort of BBB/consumer review fashion pointing out that they're defective and harmful. Anti gun groups are basically sociological and political pollution.

We must continue to educate...... Knowledge is power!