ACLU joins with Gun Owners group to oppose the Patriot ACT

[el_gato]

this was origninally posted in GD by bigtree
but it clearly deserves to be in this section as well



Diverse Groups Line Up To Fight Patriot Act's Extension
by Beth Wilson
May 5, 2004
Amarillo Globe-News

(snips)

Passed just 44 days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the act has drawn critics from all sides.

At the top of that list is the American Civil Liberties Union.

Will Harrell, executive director ACLU of Texas, said the Patriot Act represents the greatest erosion of civil liberties since the group began. It attacks, among other liberties, the right to privacy, freedom of association, and is a violation of the equal protection clause, he said.

Members of the Gun Owners of America, a 300,000-member group that relies heavily on its members to lobby congress directly, have weighed in with support of the Safe Act and with opposition to the Patriot Act's renewal or any expansion, Executive Director Larry Pratt said.

"Gun owners are sensitive to having their privacy respected," he said. "Weakening the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy in the name of fighting an enemy most gun owners agree needs to be fought, we're not persuaded the remedy is an appropriate one."

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/05/05/8161519

[iverglas]

1. I'll bet

that Larry Pratt and I would also agree that adultery should not be a criminal offence.

Who knows ... maybe not for the same reasons ... but we'd be up there at the top of the list together anyhow.

The ACLU and GOA do seem to have slightly different reasons for their opposition. I wonder whether there might actually be some things they don't agree on.

.

[el_gato]

2. Iver, Do you support the patriot act ?

If not then you have to admit that you actually agree with a gun owners group on a basic issue. The issue is the right to privacy.

[iverglas]

3. whoa

I'm not a USAmerican. I don't get to have opinions like that.

Nonetheless, I "admit" (gosh, I love those loaded words) that I agree with Larry Pratt on probably millions of things. Sunsets are pretty, and kittens are cuddly, and there's nothing like a cold beer on a hot day. Never suggested I didn't, never denied I did, so nothing to "admit".

Now, if we only knew what his opposition to the Patriot Act had to do with anything of relevance here ...

And if I didn't support your Patriot Act, you can be pretty sure that the right to privacy wouldn't be right up at the top of the list of reasons why, although it is apparently at the top of Pratt's list.

I kinda liked the sound of the ACLU's other reasons: violation of freedom of assembly and of the right to equal protection. Equal protection is right up there at the top of many of my lists. How's Larry on that one?

.

[el_gato]

4. My point exactly

I'm glad to see you support the right to privacy.

But hey, let's talk about loaded language:
"And if I didn't support your Patriot Act"

You use the word "your" yet I was an active participant
in getting the anti-patriot act resolution passed in my home town.
So you can take your phoney accusations and go home.

I know the anti-gun elements here hate it when they see
gun owners take an active stand in preserving our liberty
not just in the area of gun ownership but in the right to
privacy and freedom of assembly as well.

In other words, this lays to waste the main theme
of the anti-gun clique here.

[iverglas]

5. lordy lordy lordy

You use the word "your" yet I was an active participant in getting the anti-patriot act resolution passed in my home town. So you can take your phoney accusations and go home.

Paul Martin is MY Prime Minister even though I loathe him, and I certainly have never voted for his party. He ain't your Prime Minister. I can't imagine why I'd take offence to anyone whose Prime Minister he isn't referring to him as "your" (my) Prime Minister.

Mutatis mutandis, eh? The Patriot Act ain't my Patriot Act just like Paul Martin ain't your Prime Minister. The Patriot Act is your Patriot Act just like Paul Martin is my Prime Minister. Much to our mutual chagrin, I'm sure, but true nonetheless.

I know the anti-gun elements here hate it when they see gun owners take an active stand in preserving our liberty not just in the area of gun ownership but in the right to privacy and freedom of assembly as well.

Do you really? Do you sell those crystal balls? Can we make a trade for some of those quotation marks of mine?

Without a few more details about what Pratt's problem with the Act actually is, I don't even know whether I do agree with him. As I understand it, that Act doesn't do exactly what I do think legislation of that nature *should* do, which is provide authorities with information about who is buying firearms, and what and how many firearms they're buying. Do you suppose Pratt agrees with me on that?

In other words, this lays to waste the main theme of the anti-gun clique here.

Oh, what nonsense. Has Pratt suddenly stopped being a racist pig? Can we have the answer to that question about equal protection?

How does that thing go ... even a stopped clock ...

Does anyone here really imagine that Pratt gives a pinch of poop about the way that members of ethnic minorities have been victimized under that Patriot Act? Or that if there weren't something about it that affected his interests directly, he'd have had anything to say about it?

.

[el_gato]

6. hmm, the way you concern yourself with our laws I assumed you were U.S.

but anyway I see from your post that you actually do not support the right to privacy. I guess I gave you too much credit.

[iverglas]

7. too bad the evidence is against you

hmm, the way you concern yourself with our laws I assumed you were U.S.

It's such a shame that I had said "I am not a USAmerican", right up at the top of the very same post in which I uttered the terrible phrase "your Patriot Act" ... post # 3 ... and that your objection to my calling it "your Patriot Act" came in post # 4.

And I give up. Where can this concern of mine about your laws be found? There must be a record of it somewhere, I'd think.


but anyway I see from your post that you actually do not support the right to privacy.

Have you considered taking some kind of introductory philosophy class? It might kill two birds with one stone: equip you with some logic/analytical thinking skills, and impress upon you the badness of making false statements about other people.

Here's what I said that is the only thing you could possible be "see"ing in this respect:

And if I didn't support your Patriot Act, you can be pretty sure that the right to privacy wouldn't be right up at the top of the list of reasons why

I'll bet you like drinking beer. But if I handed you $10,000, would drinking beer be right up at the top of the list of things you would do with it?

Do you understand the concept of relative? That the right to equal protection is relatively more important to me than the right to privacy? But that given a choice between the right to privacy and, oh, a pickle, I'd take the right to privacy? That in a situation where there was no issue involving the right to equal protection, but a serious issue involving the right to privacy, I'd be out there demonstrating for the right to privacy?

Can we work on your understanding of the badness of saying false things about people, now?

And then maybe one day we can get to the inadvisability of leaping to conclusions when there is no evidence to support them, not to mention when there is evidence to demonstrate that they are false.

Like the one you apparently leapt to about me somehow accusing you of being a big fan of that Patriot Act, when the reason for what I said was in front of your face (and when the length of your tenure in these parts makes it virtually unbelievable that you were not aware that I am not a USAmerican or resident of the US).

.

[el_gato]

8. that's right, I'm not particularly interested in your personal details

Thus I was not aware of your non-U.S. status.

Nontheless, It's good to see different elements across the political spectrum here in the use joining forces to counteract the elements
of fascism here in the U.S.

Since you said you are not particularly concerned with our laws I don't see why you felt compelled to post in this thread to begin with.



"And I give up. Where can this concern of mine about your laws be found? There must be a record of it somewhere, I'd think."

Do you always partake in debates that you have no interest in?

[MTG250]

9. The Patriot Act

is just as stupid as "Freedom Fries"

[mosin]

10. As a member of both groups...

I am glad to see them working together against both the PATRIOT Act and the Bipartisan Free Speech Suppression and Incumbent Protection Act (also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act). All liberties are important.

[MrSandman]

11. Didn't the ACLU also challenge...

Campaign Reform with gun owner groups?

[mosin]

12. Yes

That's what I was trying to say in #10. I just didn't say it as clearly. :)

A laundry list of advocacy groups spanning the entire political spectrum opposed BCRA, including the ACLU, the NRA, and the GOA. It gags them all unconstitutionally, and I was appalled at the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision.