[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework

Security Setting Enterprise for Active Directory?

Volker Thebrath

7/10/2008 9:56:00 AM

Hi,

I have a large .Net application and I need to start it from a
networkshare from the ActiveDirectory domaincontroller. I thought that
it would be possible to grant FullTrust rights for all client machines
by adding a new CodeGroup in the .Net 2.0 Configuration unter
Enterprise, and that it would work for all client machines. But it
does not work.

I know that I could export a .msi file with the settings, but those
files are replacing all settings on the client instead of merging
together.

Anyone an idea how to configure a Setting for the entire Active
Directory?

Best, Volker
14 Answers

Klaus Schadenfreude

8/20/2012 10:16:00 AM

0

>deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>I've replied to one only, namely the one put
>forward by KS that the ACLU says it defends the Constitution when
>clearly it doesn't. (Well, it's not really an argument, just a bald,
>unsupported claim.)


Here's the support, with some hair.

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of
a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second
Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States
v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington
D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in
D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment
protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not
associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the
nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not,
however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither
the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil
liberties issue.
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second...

RD Sandman

8/20/2012 4:40:00 PM

0

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in news:S_
2dnZwRcLAQKqzNnZ2dnUVZ5jSdnZ2d@giganews.com:

> On 8/19/12 9:03 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
>> news:g9Cdnah_SPm9r6zNnZ2dnUVZ5jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 8/19/12 1:03 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
>>>> news:gYudnUpBs51XvqzNnZ2dnUVZ5j2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ramon F. Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in
talk.politics.guns
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 19, 10:14 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To the far rightie folks who keep on trying to dismiss:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - SPLC, ACLU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's easy to dismiss the ACLU.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's easy for ignoramuses to dismiss reality.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They claim to defend the Constitution,
>>>>>> when they clearly do not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me use this post as a teachable moment about rightard thinking
>>>>> because the post is typical. First of all, there's a bare claim:
>>>>> the ACLU does not defend the Constitution. Well, the organization
>>>>> says it does, so a rational person might present some evidence that
>>>>> the organization is lying. None given, of course. That's because
a
>>>>> rightard doesn't need evidence for an issue that's "clear" in his
>>>>> mind.
>>>>> There's no need to check a decision against reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, let's hop on over to www.aclu.org, where we can check to see
>>>>> whether the ACLU documents its defense of Constitutional rights.
>>>>> Let's pick an easy one, the First Amendment's guarantee of free
>>>>> exercise of religion. To make this even easier for the rightard
>>>>> mind, I've
>>>> included
>>>>> a small selection of ACLU actions on behalf of Christians whose
>>>>> right
>>>> to
>>>>> worship had been denied.
>>>>
>>>> Now, since this is a gun group you are posting in, let's look at
>>>> another simply part of the Constitution. Just below the First
>>>> Amendment is the Second Amendment. Let's see what the ACLU says
>>>> about defending that:
>>>>
>>>> "Second Amendment
>>>>
>>>> Gun Control
>>>>
>>>> Updated: 7/8/2008
>>>> The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being
>>>> necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to
>>>> keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>>>>
>>>> ACLU POSITION
>>>> Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security
>>>> of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the
>>>> Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an
>>>> individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939
>>>> decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have
>>>> endorsed that view.
>>>>
>>>> The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down
>>>> Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's
2008
>>>> decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second
>>>> Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms,
>>>> whether or not associated with a state militia.
>>>>
>>>> The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the
>>>> nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not,
>>>> however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither
>>>> the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil
>>>> liberties issue.
>>>>
>>>> ANALYSIS
>>>> Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v.
>>>> Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our
>>>> policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU
policies,
>>>> it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and
>>>> civil liberties.
>>>>
>>>> Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At
the
>>>> same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what
>>>> firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations
>>>> (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination
>>>> will be made.
>>>>
>>>> Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, don't some of those arguments on the ACLU make more sense?
>>>
>>> Which arguments are those? I've replied to one only, namely the one
>>> put forward by KS that the ACLU says it defends the Constitution when
>>> clearly it doesn't. (Well, it's not really an argument, just a bald,
>>> unsupported claim.)
>>
>> Same argument. The ACLU does NOT support ALL of the Constitution. It
>> picks and chooses.
>
> So it does. That's irrelevant. KS' claim is that the ACLU "clearly"
> doesn't support the Constitution. It does. Whether it does to your
> satisfaction doesn't affect that.
>
> <snip/>
>

To KS's satisfaction, it does not. Nor does it to mine. One would think
that with the Supremes ruling on 2A that the ACLU would accept that just
like other legal organizations do. The ACLU (to which I used to be a
contributor) has, IMHO become a protector of *liberal* causes only. I am
in favor of all of our Constitution being defended.

--

To keep some of my Navy friends happy:

Any ship can be a minesweeper.......once!!


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

(Mortar)

8/20/2012 4:48:00 PM

0

On 8/20/12 5:14 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>> KS' claim is that the ACLU "clearly"
>> doesn't support the Constitution. It does. Whether it does to your
>> satisfaction doesn't affect that.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> It supports only the parts it likes.
>
> That's not supporting the Constitution.

So if you enthusiastically devour 30 flavors of ice cream at your local
Baskin Robbins but don't like their mint chocolate chip, I suppose
you're gonna tell me you really don't like ice cream?

Sorry, Sparky, when the ACLU goes to court to say, protect the rights of
students to wear religious ornaments to public school, that's supporting
the Constitution, in particular the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause.

If you want to criticize the ACLU because you don't like the priorities
they set, that's fine. But don't bullshit me with your "clearly it
doesn't" crap when you haven't done your homework.

(Mortar)

8/20/2012 4:55:00 PM

0

On 8/20/12 5:15 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>> I've replied to one only, namely the one put
>> forward by KS that the ACLU says it defends the Constitution when
>> clearly it doesn't. (Well, it's not really an argument, just a bald,
>> unsupported claim.)
>
>
> Here's the support, with some hair.
>
> Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of
> a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second
> Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
> For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States
> v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

A brief statement of the organization's views and a correct statement
about history.
>
> The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington
> D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in
> D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment
> protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not
> associated with a state militia.

A correct statement that the Supreme Court has decided otherwise and
restated the law.

> The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the
> nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not,
> however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither
> the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil
> liberties issue.
> http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second...

Another statement of position, which means they probably aren't taking
any 2nd Amendment cases.

Now, that's fine. The ACLU isn't interested in guns, and you're
fascinated by them. Feel free to criticize the ACLU for having its
priorities wrong, but don't bullshit me with your "clearly it doesn't" crap.

When the ACLU goes to court to defend a student's right to wear
religious symbols to a public school, does that defend the Constitution
or not?

Ramon F Herrera

8/20/2012 4:58:00 PM

0

On Aug 20, 5:14 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >KS' claim is that the ACLU "clearly"
> >doesn't support the Constitution.  It does.  Whether it does to your
> >satisfaction doesn't affect that.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> It supports only the parts it likes.
>
> That's not supporting the Constitution.

The 2nd. Amendment has A LOT of support (more than it deserves). ACLU
has many other, more critical tasks to protect our freedoms.

-Ramon

RD Sandman

8/20/2012 5:23:00 PM

0

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
news:hOGdndo3VsZr9q_NnZ2dnUVZ5oKdnZ2d@giganews.com:

> On 8/20/12 5:15 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>> I've replied to one only, namely the one put
>>> forward by KS that the ACLU says it defends the Constitution when
>>> clearly it doesn't. (Well, it's not really an argument, just a
>>> bald, unsupported claim.)
>>
>>
>> Here's the support, with some hair.
>>
>> Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security
>> of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the
>> Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an
>> individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939
>> decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have
>> endorsed that view.
>
> A brief statement of the organization's views and a correct statement
> about history.
>>
>> The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down
>> Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008
>> decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second
>> Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms,
>> whether or not associated with a state militia.
>
> A correct statement that the Supreme Court has decided otherwise and
> restated the law.

Except that US v Miller was a rather poorly worded decision that did NOT
really address who had that right be it collective or individual. It
addressed what weapons allegedly had that protection. In that case it
was a sawed off shotgun. With no appearance at the Supremes for the
appellees, it was a rather one sided presentation to the Court.

It left legal scholars rather divided on whether or not it was an
individual right like the other rights in the BoR or a collective one.
Even Lawrence Tribe in later years decided it was an individual one.

>> The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the
>> nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not,
>> however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither
>> the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil
>> liberties issue.
>> http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law...
>> migrants-rights/second-amendment
>
> Another statement of position, which means they probably aren't taking
> any 2nd Amendment cases.

True. Which raises the question on just what parts of the Constitution
do they take on.

> Now, that's fine. The ACLU isn't interested in guns, and you're
> fascinated by them. Feel free to criticize the ACLU for having its
> priorities wrong, but don't bullshit me with your "clearly it doesn't"
> crap.
>
> When the ACLU goes to court to defend a student's right to wear
> religious symbols to a public school, does that defend the
> Constitution or not?

It defends one part of it just like their refusal to hear Second
Amendment cases shows that they won't defend those cases. The problem is
when conservatives claim they don't defend the Constitution (meaning all
of it) or liberals claim that, yes, they do (meaning all of it).


--

To keep some of my Navy friends happy:

Any ship can be a minesweeper.......once!!


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

(Mortar)

8/20/2012 8:40:00 PM

0

On 8/20/12 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in news:S_
> 2dnZwRcLAQKqzNnZ2dnUVZ5jSdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> On 8/19/12 9:03 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
>>> news:g9Cdnah_SPm9r6zNnZ2dnUVZ5jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 8/19/12 1:03 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:gYudnUpBs51XvqzNnZ2dnUVZ5j2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Ramon F. Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in
> talk.politics.guns
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 19, 10:14 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net>
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To the far rightie folks who keep on trying to dismiss:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - SPLC, ACLU
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's easy to dismiss the ACLU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's easy for ignoramuses to dismiss reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They claim to defend the Constitution,
>>>>>>> when they clearly do not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me use this post as a teachable moment about rightard thinking
>>>>>> because the post is typical. First of all, there's a bare claim:
>>>>>> the ACLU does not defend the Constitution. Well, the organization
>>>>>> says it does, so a rational person might present some evidence that
>>>>>> the organization is lying. None given, of course. That's because
> a
>>>>>> rightard doesn't need evidence for an issue that's "clear" in his
>>>>>> mind.
>>>>>> There's no need to check a decision against reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, let's hop on over to www.aclu.org, where we can check to see
>>>>>> whether the ACLU documents its defense of Constitutional rights.
>>>>>> Let's pick an easy one, the First Amendment's guarantee of free
>>>>>> exercise of religion. To make this even easier for the rightard
>>>>>> mind, I've
>>>>> included
>>>>>> a small selection of ACLU actions on behalf of Christians whose
>>>>>> right
>>>>> to
>>>>>> worship had been denied.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, since this is a gun group you are posting in, let's look at
>>>>> another simply part of the Constitution. Just below the First
>>>>> Amendment is the Second Amendment. Let's see what the ACLU says
>>>>> about defending that:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Second Amendment
>>>>>
>>>>> Gun Control
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated: 7/8/2008
>>>>> The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being
>>>>> necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
> to
>>>>> keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>>>>>
>>>>> ACLU POSITION
>>>>> Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security
>>>>> of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the
>>>>> Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an
>>>>> individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939
>>>>> decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have
>>>>> endorsed that view.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down
>>>>> Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's
> 2008
>>>>> decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second
>>>>> Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms,
>>>>> whether or not associated with a state militia.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the
>>>>> nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not,
>>>>> however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither
>>>>> the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil
>>>>> liberties issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> ANALYSIS
>>>>> Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v.
>>>>> Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our
>>>>> policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU
> policies,
>>>>> it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and
>>>>> civil liberties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At
> the
>>>>> same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what
>>>>> firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations
>>>>> (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination
>>>>> will be made.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, don't some of those arguments on the ACLU make more sense?
>>>>
>>>> Which arguments are those? I've replied to one only, namely the one
>>>> put forward by KS that the ACLU says it defends the Constitution when
>>>> clearly it doesn't. (Well, it's not really an argument, just a bald,
>>>> unsupported claim.)
>>>
>>> Same argument. The ACLU does NOT support ALL of the Constitution. It
>>> picks and chooses.
>>
>> So it does. That's irrelevant. KS' claim is that the ACLU "clearly"
>> doesn't support the Constitution. It does. Whether it does to your
>> satisfaction doesn't affect that.
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>
> To KS's satisfaction, it does not.

And as I've said, I have no quarrel with that. The satisfaction of
ignoramuses doesn't concern me. Blanket false statements that "clearly"
the ACLU doesn't support the Constitution meet with contrary evidence.

> Nor does it to mine. One would think
> that with the Supremes ruling on 2A that the ACLU would accept that just
> like other legal organizations do.

As as I've said, I have no quarrel with that. If you think that the
ACLU should allocate its resources to defending 2nd Amendment rights,
that's fine.

> The ACLU (to which I used to be a
> contributor) has, IMHO become a protector of *liberal* causes only.

Please define what you mean by "liberal" or even "*liberal*" causes.
Does it count as a liberal cause when the ACLU defends the right of
Christian high-school students to wear religious symbols? Or is that
reserved for defending Muslim women wearing headscarves? Did it count
as a liberal cause when the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in
Skokie? The ACLU web site documents the cases they take on. Which of
those are "liberal" cases?

> I am in favor of all of our Constitution being defended.

Thanks for sharing. Imagine what a disappointment it is to me to find
you defending an ignoramus like KS and adopting the silly argument that
defending civil liberties is somehow just a "liberal" concern.

Don't worry. I'll bear up somehow.

(Mortar)

8/20/2012 8:49:00 PM

0

On 8/20/12 12:23 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
> news:hOGdndo3VsZr9q_NnZ2dnUVZ5oKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> On 8/20/12 5:15 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>> I've replied to one only, namely the one put
>>>> forward by KS that the ACLU says it defends the Constitution when
>>>> clearly it doesn't. (Well, it's not really an argument, just a
>>>> bald, unsupported claim.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the support, with some hair.
>>>
>>> Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security
>>> of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the
>>> Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an
>>> individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939
>>> decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have
>>> endorsed that view.
>>
>> A brief statement of the organization's views and a correct statement
>> about history.
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down
>>> Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008
>>> decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second
>>> Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms,
>>> whether or not associated with a state militia.
>>
>> A correct statement that the Supreme Court has decided otherwise and
>> restated the law.
>
> Except that US v Miller was a rather poorly worded decision that did NOT
> really address who had that right be it collective or individual. It
> addressed what weapons allegedly had that protection. In that case it
> was a sawed off shotgun. With no appearance at the Supremes for the
> appellees, it was a rather one sided presentation to the Court.
>
> It left legal scholars rather divided on whether or not it was an
> individual right like the other rights in the BoR or a collective one.
> Even Lawrence Tribe in later years decided it was an individual one.
>
>>> The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the
>>> nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not,
>>> however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither
>>> the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil
>>> liberties issue.
>>> http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law...
>>> migrants-rights/second-amendment
>>
>> Another statement of position, which means they probably aren't taking
>> any 2nd Amendment cases.
>
> True. Which raises the question on just what parts of the Constitution
> do they take on.

Is that a rhetorical question or would you like me to do the work for
you to answer it?

>> Now, that's fine. The ACLU isn't interested in guns, and you're
>> fascinated by them. Feel free to criticize the ACLU for having its
>> priorities wrong, but don't bullshit me with your "clearly it doesn't"
>> crap.
>>
>> When the ACLU goes to court to defend a student's right to wear
>> religious symbols to a public school, does that defend the
>> Constitution or not?
>
> It defends one part of it

Ah. So clearly the ACLU does defend the Constitution. Contrary to KS'
claim.

> just like their refusal to hear Second
> Amendment cases shows that they won't defend those cases. The problem is
> when conservatives claim they don't defend the Constitution (meaning all
> of it) or liberals claim that, yes, they do (meaning all of it).

The problem is that "conservatives" (i.e., KS, thus the scare quotes)
claim that the ACLU "clearly" doesn't defend the Constitution, he's
clearly wrong. When "liberals" (i.e., me, and thus the scare quotes)
say that the ACLU defends the Constitution, I mean that's what you can
find the ACLU doing.

Feel free to pick an ACLU case and tell me how their involvement does
not amount to defending the Constitution.

RD Sandman

8/20/2012 10:21:00 PM

0

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in news:R-
CdnVcs6vU0Pa_NnZ2dnUVZ5tGdnZ2d@giganews.com:

> On 8/20/12 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in news:S_
>> 2dnZwRcLAQKqzNnZ2dnUVZ5jSdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 8/19/12 9:03 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
>>>> news:g9Cdnah_SPm9r6zNnZ2dnUVZ5jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/19/12 1:03 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:gYudnUpBs51XvqzNnZ2dnUVZ5j2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Ramon F. Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in
>> talk.politics.guns
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 19, 10:14 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To the far rightie folks who keep on trying to dismiss:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - SPLC, ACLU
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's easy to dismiss the ACLU.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's easy for ignoramuses to dismiss reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They claim to defend the Constitution,
>>>>>>>> when they clearly do not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me use this post as a teachable moment about rightard thinking
>>>>>>> because the post is typical. First of all, there's a bare claim:
>>>>>>> the ACLU does not defend the Constitution. Well, the organization
>>>>>>> says it does, so a rational person might present some evidence that
>>>>>>> the organization is lying. None given, of course. That's because
>> a
>>>>>>> rightard doesn't need evidence for an issue that's "clear" in his
>>>>>>> mind.
>>>>>>> There's no need to check a decision against reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, let's hop on over to www.aclu.org, where we can check to see
>>>>>>> whether the ACLU documents its defense of Constitutional rights.
>>>>>>> Let's pick an easy one, the First Amendment's guarantee of free
>>>>>>> exercise of religion. To make this even easier for the rightard
>>>>>>> mind, I've
>>>>>> included
>>>>>>> a small selection of ACLU actions on behalf of Christians whose
>>>>>>> right
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> worship had been denied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, since this is a gun group you are posting in, let's look at
>>>>>> another simply part of the Constitution. Just below the First
>>>>>> Amendment is the Second Amendment. Let's see what the ACLU says
>>>>>> about defending that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Second Amendment
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gun Control
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Updated: 7/8/2008
>>>>>> The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being
>>>>>> necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
>> to
>>>>>> keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ACLU POSITION
>>>>>> Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security
>>>>>> of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the
>>>>>> Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an
>>>>>> individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939
>>>>>> decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have
>>>>>> endorsed that view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down
>>>>>> Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's
>> 2008
>>>>>> decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second
>>>>>> Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms,
>>>>>> whether or not associated with a state militia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the
>>>>>> nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not,
>>>>>> however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither
>>>>>> the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil
>>>>>> liberties issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ANALYSIS
>>>>>> Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v.
>>>>>> Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our
>>>>>> policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU
>> policies,
>>>>>> it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and
>>>>>> civil liberties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At
>> the
>>>>>> same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what
>>>>>> firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations
>>>>>> (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination
>>>>>> will be made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, don't some of those arguments on the ACLU make more sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which arguments are those? I've replied to one only, namely the one
>>>>> put forward by KS that the ACLU says it defends the Constitution when
>>>>> clearly it doesn't. (Well, it's not really an argument, just a bald,
>>>>> unsupported claim.)
>>>>
>>>> Same argument. The ACLU does NOT support ALL of the Constitution. It
>>>> picks and chooses.
>>>
>>> So it does. That's irrelevant. KS' claim is that the ACLU "clearly"
>>> doesn't support the Constitution. It does. Whether it does to your
>>> satisfaction doesn't affect that.
>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>
>> To KS's satisfaction, it does not.
>
> And as I've said, I have no quarrel with that. The satisfaction of
> ignoramuses doesn't concern me. Blanket false statements that "clearly"
> the ACLU doesn't support the Constitution meet with contrary evidence.
>
>> Nor does it to mine. One would think
>> that with the Supremes ruling on 2A that the ACLU would accept that just
>> like other legal organizations do.
>
> As as I've said, I have no quarrel with that. If you think that the
> ACLU should allocate its resources to defending 2nd Amendment rights,

Among others.

> that's fine.
>
>> The ACLU (to which I used to be a
>> contributor) has, IMHO become a protector of *liberal* causes only.
>
> Please define what you mean by "liberal" or even "*liberal*" causes.
> Does it count as a liberal cause when the ACLU defends the right of
> Christian high-school students to wear religious symbols?

Nope. I tend to look at the 1st amendment as a liberal cause, and the
second amendment as a conservative one. As Peter McWilliams used to say,
"The widest gap between liberals and conservatives was the blank space
between the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution."

Or is that
> reserved for defending Muslim women wearing headscarves? Did it count
> as a liberal cause when the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in
> Skokie? The ACLU web site documents the cases they take on. Which of
> those are "liberal" cases?

See above.

>> I am in favor of all of our Constitution being defended.
>
> Thanks for sharing. Imagine what a disappointment it is to me to find
> you defending an ignoramus like KS and adopting the silly argument that
> defending civil liberties is somehow just a "liberal" concern.
>
> Don't worry. I'll bear up somehow.

I would hope so. I'd hate to think you collapsed just on my beliefs. ;)



--

5 second fuses last about 3 seconds...


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

RD Sandman

8/20/2012 10:25:00 PM

0

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
news:dYOdnb4dM6dfP6_NnZ2dnUVZ5vudnZ2d@giganews.com:

> On 8/20/12 12:23 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
>> news:hOGdndo3VsZr9q_NnZ2dnUVZ5oKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 8/20/12 5:15 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>> I've replied to one only, namely the one put
>>>>> forward by KS that the ACLU says it defends the Constitution when
>>>>> clearly it doesn't. (Well, it's not really an argument, just a
>>>>> bald, unsupported claim.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's the support, with some hair.
>>>>
>>>> Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security
>>>> of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the
>>>> Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an
>>>> individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939
>>>> decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have
>>>> endorsed that view.
>>>
>>> A brief statement of the organization's views and a correct
>>> statement about history.
>>>>
>>>> The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down
>>>> Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's
>>>> 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the
>>>> Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear
>>>> arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
>>>
>>> A correct statement that the Supreme Court has decided otherwise and
>>> restated the law.
>>
>> Except that US v Miller was a rather poorly worded decision that did
>> NOT really address who had that right be it collective or individual.
>> It addressed what weapons allegedly had that protection. In that
>> case it was a sawed off shotgun. With no appearance at the Supremes
>> for the appellees, it was a rather one sided presentation to the
>> Court.
>>
>> It left legal scholars rather divided on whether or not it was an
>> individual right like the other rights in the BoR or a collective
>> one. Even Lawrence Tribe in later years decided it was an individual
>> one.
>>
>>>> The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the
>>>> nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not,
>>>> however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view,
>>>> neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a
>>>> civil liberties issue.
>>>> http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-l...
>>>> im migrants-rights/second-amendment
>>>
>>> Another statement of position, which means they probably aren't
>>> taking any 2nd Amendment cases.
>>
>> True. Which raises the question on just what parts of the
>> Constitution do they take on.
>
> Is that a rhetorical question or would you like me to do the work for
> you to answer it?

I quite capable of working it out on my own. You may not agree with what
I come up with but that would be your problem as much as it would be
mine.

>>> Now, that's fine. The ACLU isn't interested in guns, and you're
>>> fascinated by them. Feel free to criticize the ACLU for having its
>>> priorities wrong, but don't bullshit me with your "clearly it
>>> doesn't" crap.
>>>
>>> When the ACLU goes to court to defend a student's right to wear
>>> religious symbols to a public school, does that defend the
>>> Constitution or not?
>>
>> It defends one part of it
>
> Ah. So clearly the ACLU does defend the Constitution. Contrary to
> KS' claim.

I haven't said different. I said he was correct on that PART of it.

>> just like their refusal to hear Second
>> Amendment cases shows that they won't defend those cases. The
>> problem is when conservatives claim they don't defend the
>> Constitution (meaning all of it) or liberals claim that, yes, they do
>> (meaning all of it).
>
> The problem is that "conservatives" (i.e., KS, thus the scare quotes)
> claim that the ACLU "clearly" doesn't defend the Constitution, he's
> clearly wrong. When "liberals" (i.e., me, and thus the scare quotes)
> say that the ACLU defends the Constitution, I mean that's what you can
> find the ACLU doing.

And I say that they don't defend all of it. Do you say that they do?

> Feel free to pick an ACLU case and tell me how their involvement does
> not amount to defending the Constitution.

How about cases that they didn't pick or defend?


--

5 second fuses last about 3 seconds...


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)