All concerned with civil rights, First Amendment separation of Church & State must speak out NOW and let Senators know ? Extremist Judge Samuel Alito must NOT be appointed to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States!Hours remain until the U.S. Senate is expected to hold a full vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.On Monday, January 30 the Senate is likely to vote an end to any filibuster that would stall or prevent a floor vote on the appointment of Judge Alito. Supporters of Alito need just 60 votes to force cloture, and according to Associated Press have 62. That will force a vote by the full Senate on Tuesday, January 31. The latest count indicates that 53 Republicans and three Democrats will vote to confirm Alito, well over the required majority. The White House is moving for a full ?up-or-down? vote on Alito in time for President Bush?s address to the nation on Tuesday night. In his weekly radio address last Saturday, Bush called for immediate Senate confirmation on Alito, describing him as a nominee ?who understands that the role of a judge is to strictly interpret the law.? This is our final opportunity to prevent George W. Bush from ?packing? the Supreme Court and installing a majority that is likely to reverse decades of important decisions affecting all Americans!AMERICAN ATHEISTS is asking all ?Godless Americans? ? Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and other nonbelievers to mobilize now and help flood the Senate with phone calls, faxes and e-mails demanding a NO vote on the Alito nomination!* We urge all nonbeliever groups to circulate this Action Alert, and “mobilize your base” of members and supporters to contact the Senate! Alito would assume the post occupied by Justice Sandra Day O?Connor who often (but not always) provided the crucial ?fifth vote? cited by SJC member Sen. Michael Durbin of Illinois. Rather than replace O?Connor with an enlightened, progressive judicial moderate who would offset the strident views of justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Bush catered to his powerful religious-right constituency and instead selected Alito.The vote by the full U.S. Senate will be the last opportunity we have to stop this appointment! Based on the current party rankings, all Democrats must ?hold the line? and vote against Alito ? and moderate Republicans must be persuaded by their constituents back home to ?break ranks? with party leadership, and vote ?No? on this nomination!Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other non believers must join the effort to stop Alito now by helping to flood the Senate with letters, e-mails, phone calls and faxes! Tell your Senators that you oppose the Bush-religious right takeover our Supreme Court!What you can do!Contact Senators NOW! Urge them to vote “NO!” on Alito! Your letters, calls and e-mails should be concise, polite but to-the-point (see our tips page.) Be sure to ask for a response from your U.S. Senator on how he/she will vote on the Alito nomination! Share your communications with U.S. Senators. Send us a copy and we will post them at our web site Spread this Action Alert! If you are in an Atheist/freethought group, consider posting this message to your newsletter, web site and e-mail lists. Urge others to circulate this Alert, too! After writing your U.S. Senators, consider sending a letter-to-the-editor of the your local/regional paper and other publications voicing your disapproval of the Alito nomination! This will help inform the public and mobilize opposition to this extremist nominee. Be sure to point out that Samuel Alito is ?bad news? for the constitutional separation of church and state! Be informed! Here are some stories about the Alito nomination. We also encourage you to visit other web sites to gain information, including Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and People for the American Way. Related Reading?All Over but the Vote? Alito sails through hearings, some Demos mull filibuster ? what about the new SCOTUS?? 1-18-06 ?New Documents Raise Further Concerns Over Alito & Establishment Clause,? 1-1-06 ?Tipping Point? Alito nomination battle to begin in January, determine possible direction of the Supreme Court ? Free Exercise collides with Separation? 11-22-05 Take Action Now?This may be our last chance to stop this dangerous nomination. If confirmed, Alito will move the court further in the direction of ?accommodating? discriminatory religious practices, allowing blatant proselytizing in the public square by government and religious groups, and even possibly further funding for ?faith-based? social projects. Stop Alito now ? before it?s too late!(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)
Just to Clairify:
It doesn’t matter how many guns you own or not.
If an internal war was to erupt within the U.S., there’d be such a confusion of external troops that no one would know their arses from their elbows anyway.
brock2,
You do that and you have a fair chance of hitting the kid either instead of or in addition to the hound. This is the kind of irresponsible gun use that reinforces the call for restrictions on gun ownership to those that have the ability, and need to use them.
As you say, common sense.
Brock2,
Can you put yourself in someone else’s shoe and try to conjure up a solid reason why they would need a machine gun? It almost sounds like if you want to own one one day you should be able to. Then someone wants nuclear weapons one day and they should be able to….etc.
p.s. I don’t think guns are evil.
TXatheist said:
“p.s. I don’t think guns are evil.”.
Agreed.
No tool is “evil” in and of itself.
The -uses- to which so-called responsible people -put- these tools,
however, is quite a different question.
brock2:
Oh this locked in stasis thing …AGAIN.
Amendments are CHANGEABLE. No amount of NRA propaganda is going to negate that.
The 1st amendment says freedom of speech. You still can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, or incite to riot.
You’ve also completely ignored my points about auto-firing weaponry.
I’ve shot pistols, rifles: have even owned a few.
I’ve also witnessed a great DEAL of irresponsible gun handling.
I say, you want a gun? Fine. No history of mental (violent) illness, no record of armed crime, no substance addiction. 14 day waiting period.
I think those are rational, sensible ideas.
Oh, & owners should go out & PRACTICE w/the bloody things, & take an obligatory course in safe gun management.
Well, I’m ambivalent about the whole thing – I admit it freely.
On 1 hand, even Jefferson said:
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].
Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for the State of Virginia, June, 1776″
On the other hand, I have a problem w/living in fear.
But a machine gun?
I’ve already amply shown that most folks wouldn’t be able to handle the bloody things to save their lives.
Recoil makes the muzzle rise upwards. Even a 22. caliber.
“An armed America is a safe America – a happy America!”
This paid advertisement has been brought to you courtesy of S&W, & H & K.
Guns make me nervous. I can use 1 (used to be a fair shot).
It takes a lot less effort to pull a trigger, than to use reason.
But people tend to think w/their passion 1st, their reason 2nd.
My biggest concern, is that Shrub won’t step down in 2008.
“Whether ’tis nobler to suffer the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of sorrows, & thus, be drown’d by them.”
Tx,
“a solid reason:” respecting the 2nd amendment. Yes, you’re right, but do you really think individual Americans can own a _______ weapon? Do you understand how difficult it is to acquire and deliver one ? It’
s nearly impossible.
But the argument ‘the power of a particular weapon’ is weak, because law-abiding Americans rarely misuse weapons and because of the many arguments favoring firearm possession.
For the best argument I have ever read on gun possession: ‘The Tyranny of Gun Control’, published by FFF (The Future of Freedom Foundation, http://www.FFF.org) It’s written by the best Americans (the best patriots;) in it are beautiful essays on freedom (4,6,7).
cartoon on alito:
http://www.ucomics.com/bensargent/2006/01/28/
Reluctant:
“You’ve also completely ignored my points about auto-firing weaponry.
I’ve shot pistols, rifles: have even owned a few.”
I’ve been arguing machine guns – why should I comment over modified rifles ? I’m ignored.
“Amendments are CHANGEABLE. No amount of NRA propaganda is going to negate that.”
Change it, then I’ll shut-up.
brock2,
Trying to read the stuff you recommended, but I can find it with the links you posted. Could you perhaps give a direct link to the article?
Seriously, if there are good arguments, I’d like to hear them.
Heathen: I knew you would say that:
“You do that and you have a fair chance of hitting the kid either instead of or in addition to the hound.” [Heathen]
A car is dangerous…you find one problem with something and off you go ?
Have you studied both sides ? At the very least you’ll get another perspective on freedom. Have you read it ? ‘The Tyranny of Gun Control’ ? There are many others too. I’m the least qualified.
http://www.fff.org
I checked again.
brock2:
A machine gun IS modified weaponry. I didn’t say I was shooting ‘modified’ rifles. I was illustrating my knowledge of the subject.
Stop cherry-picking what I say. You’re starting to sound like a ‘believer’.
Really? What state do you live in? People misuse weaponry all the time. That sort of thing might go over in the bunker of your particular militia group, but we’re talking about the real world here.
You’ve yet to provide citations for the ‘civilian hero’ scenario you mentioned before, BTW.
Somehow, I doubt that you will. But, hey, the 1st amendment says you don’t have to.
Unless you incite to riot. & your rhetorical skills need some more polish before you can do that.
Admit that there are indeed some sensible ideas in re: to gun control. I’ve illustrated them.
I think maybe I’ve looked down a lot more 1-eyed stares than you have, son. I’d be willing to bet on it.
I’ve had friends point guns at me. My niece (after her father BRAGGED that she was very well-instructed in gun safety. & yes: it WAS loaded).
I’ve had 2 occasions where cops drew down on me.
I think you’d be singing a different tune after that.
brock2:
On the surface, that SEEMS like an apt comparison…but it’s not.
An automobile serves many purposes, the foremost of which is transportation.
The gun is used for 1 purpose only.
Also, in accordance w/your earlier statements, cars are NOT mentioned in the Constitution.
An automobile is also subject to many, MANY laws, including: DUI, insurance, age, finances, etc.
You want to make the comparison again?
Fine, let’s regulate gun usage as much as we regulate the driving of a car.
Guns are dangerous, but cops carry them all the time – cops are no different than you. Many things are dangerous; the media has brainwashed us all on weapons.
An outspoken Atheist needs to be allowed to carry a weapon of choice for personal protection.
brock2,
I went to the site http://www.fff.org. All I can find is a link to buy the book. Is that what you are suggesting I do?
I was hoping that since you are using it to represent your argument you might be able to point me to something I can read on-line.
Of course your own words and ideas would be even better.
Love this one from brock in response to RA:
Well duh! As soon as the weapon is misused the American is no longer law-abiding. Smacks of the no true Scotsman logical fallacy.
Not sure what your point is here. A car is dangerous, but not designed for the purpose of killing. In fact almost everything we deal with every day is dangerous, but again, very very few have a designed purpose to maim and kill.
Do you dispute that firing a shot at a hound that is mauling a child is a foolhardy thing to do?
Hey, speak for yourself.
A gun is just a tool. A specific tool.
Just out of curiousity, mind you: would you rather live in a dangerous society that required carrying a weapon, or would you rather live in a peaceful one, where there was no such need?
I went to http://www.fff.org, BTW, & tried to find your source material (HZ is right: it’s hard to find the exact sources on it). However, I did a search on ‘god’, & well, hate to break the news to you, but that’s a theist website.
Go see for yourself.
Personal protection against whom? An outspoken theist? Are you advocating gun battles over religious (un)belief?
How many theists have threatened you with bodily harm? How many have actually gone through with it?
I guess it’s possible that you might be shot by a crazy theist (or anyone else) but again, if that happens you are not likely to be able to get a shot off first. So if you are really trying to be defensive why are you not advocating the use of body armour and helmets?
Personally my weapon of choice is logic and reason.
brock2,
Actually they are. They are trained. They deal with the criminal element on a daily basis. They have to account for their fire-arm related actions. They have oversight.
That is not to say that they can’t do dumb or criminal things with guns. But perhaps they are less likely to do so than you and I.
RA,
Did you find the articles that Brock is referring to? I’d like to scan them, but i’m dammed if I’m going to take a trip to Borders and spend my pathetic allowance on something of such peripheral interst to me.
Brock2,
Maybe you think today it’s machine guns tomorrow it’s handguns they’ll be taking from us?? In your response you say cops carry guns. Yes, shotguns and handguns. I’m asking about any real need for machine guns and nuclear weapons ownership. Can you please state why they are needed by anyone for any reason besides fearing a tyranical gov’t? Thanks.
HZ:
No, once I found out it was a theist website, the research became somewhat of peripheral interest to myself, as well.
I mean, who wants to wade thru several pages proclaiming that god meant us to have firearms?
Not I.
Well, once again my non-U.S. viewpoint is being ignored.
Great.
Actually, I’m FOR civilians owning weapons.
Why?
Because the possibility of rebellion, EVEN IF IT IS A REVOLUTION I, MYSELF, WOULD FIGHT AGAINST, should be an option, however extreme.
No power should ever become too comfortable.
HMDK,
Sorry – not meaning to ignore you.
If civilians fight individually (ie not organised) against the ‘government forces’, is that anarchy?
The Nazi will always see the Sociali-st, not as a human being, but as an obstacle, and vice versa.
The U.S. Democrat will see the same “spook” when he encounters a Republican, and right back at each other.
This is what propaganda does.
Propaganda, the commerci-alization without any sort of shame, left or right.
If you still think that political parties are powerfull… well, you’re right…
but they’re merely henchmen.
HMDK:
Hey, so am I.
I’m just against letting any of the walking wounded pack. Or utter junkies. Or convicted felons w/a history of violence. That sort of thing.
I’m tempted to compare the ‘Let EVERYONE have a gun’ folks to the NAMBLA people, just to watch Tim-may go off on 1 of his wild tangents, just for kicks.
“HeatheNZ:
HMDK,
Sorry – not meaning to ignore you.
If civilians fight individually (ie not organised) against the ‘government forces’, is that anarchy? “.
Uhhh… yes? uuuuhh… No?
What a useless question.
It will always depend on who pin’s the badges on who’s chests.
“Comment from: reluctantatheist [Member] ? http://www.reluctantatheist.com
HMDK:
Actually, I’m FOR civilians owning weapons.
Hey, so am I.
I’m just against letting any of the walking wounded pack. Or utter junkies. Or convicted felons w/a history of violence. That sort of thing.
I’m tempted to compare the ‘Let EVERYONE have a gun’ folks to the NAMBLA people, just to watch Tim-may go off on 1 of his wild tangents, just for kicks.”
Relucty.
Right there with ya.
Amazingly, we’re still a great deal in tune.
HMDK,
Thanks for denegrating my question. I meant viewing such a scenario as a third party. Anyway, no big deal.
In terms of civilian gun ownership, I have no problem with it provided there is a (legal) purpose for owning it. hunting, target shooting, collecting, etc. What I do have an issue with is the claim of self protection from unnamed boogie-men. If you have a genuine reason to fear for your life then by all means take steps to mitigate that fear. My concern is that the “just in case I need to shoot someone” resoning merely reinforces the fortress mentality that already permeates today’s society.
Call me a dreamer, but I advocate appropriate preparation for an appropriate threat.
HeatheNZ.
Sorry. Really.
Did NOT mean to disparage you.
But while I agree with your comments about “fortress mentality”,
I have to say that a country which does not allow its citizens to protect themselves against its own possible permutations of government
is a country that is free in name only.
DK wrote: “Do you, (U.S. Citizens, wether ultra-left or ultra-right), really think it matters wether or not you have access to full-automatic firearms?”
Hey DK, I don’t think that civilians need automatic fire weapons but I do think that we have every right to own a handgun if we want to.
“As if their availabillity matters now.
It might have, way back in the corrupt, mysoginistic, racist founding of yonder country, but now?”
That’s right-the USA was founded under such horrible circumstances and pure little perfect Denmark has clean hands. Viking Danes never invaded the UK and Ireland to rape, torture, and take slaves or later on to set up racist and mysoginist colonies in the Caribbean or Africa did they? Wait a minute…
“[USA Citizens] Don’t be more moronic than you already are.”
More predictable anti American sentiments from an elitist European-this is why I don’t go back to Europe as much as I used to. I mean what has Denmark given the world? Hans Christian Anderson and existentialism.
Alex.
HMDK,
Interesting and provocative statement. I instinctually disagree with it, but need to think about why that should be so. I will consider it during my commute.