“Gee, I wonder if I could get deported?”

Associated Press – October 10, 2007:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion to stop immigration authorities forcibly drugging deportees as they are put on commercial flights back to their home countries.

The motion, filed Tuesday in federal court, comes after an immigration official testified in the Senate last month that 50 immigrants over a seven-month period were forced to take psychotropic drugs. Many of them had no psychiatric diagnosis.

According to court papers, one of the deportees, a Senegalese man, was forced to the floor in the aisle of a plane parked at Los Angeles International Airport and injected with medication.

“It’s both medically inappropriate and shocking that the government believes it can treat immigrants like animals and shoot them up with powerful anti-psychotic drugs.”



  1. Nicky says:

    Why don’t they give them alcohol instead of drugs. Get ’em drunk and put ’em on the plane to sleep!

  2. Mister Mustard says:

    >>So musty old man, where the fuck do you personally want to see
    >>the line drawn? What arms SHOULD be allowed and what
    >>SHOULD NOT?

    Oh, is THAT the question? I guess I don’t know either, exactly where the line should be drawn. I think revolvers, semi-automatics, rifles, and shotguns should be allowed; nukes and biological weapons should be outlawed. Somewhere between those two extremes would be a good place for the line.

    As to whether putting a thumb rest on the grip of a Glock 27 changes it from an “assault weapon” into a “sporting weapon” (which is why a Glock 27 has a thumb rest on its grip, btw), I dunno. I’ll let the gun nuts etc. work on that one. The exact placement of the line is less important to me than that there’s some space there to draw a line IN.

    What I object to is the poorly-hidden agenda of many “liberal” groups in fomenting this Second Amendment discord, namely THE OUTRIGHT BANNING AND CRIMINALIZATION OF CURRENTLY LEGAL GUNS.

    Ask the Brady-Bill-Bunch, after a few drinks, if they really give a shit if a Glock 27 has a thumb rest on the grip or not. Of COURSE they don’t. They want a ban on all guns. Guns are evil. And other than the overlords, no one should be permitted to have them.

  3. Mr. Fusion says:

    #35, MM

    Ask the Brady-Bill-Bunch, after a few drinks, if they really give a shit if a Glock 27 has a thumb rest on the grip or not.

    I don’t drink and I’m not constipated. A thumb grip means nothing to me. Just keep the Glock out of civilian hands.

    Of COURSE they don’t. They want a ban on all guns. Guns are evil. And other than the overlords, no one should be permitted to have them.

    No, I want a ban on guns, meant solely to kill people, in civilian hands. There is no reason civilians need handguns. There is no reason civilians need assault weapons. There is no reason civilians need weapons with explosive rounds. There is no reason civilians need biological, nuclear, or chemical weapons.

    On the other hand, there is a reason, and I support, the private ownership of hunting rifles, and shot guns. A case might even be made for target pistols but I’m not totally convinced on that one.

    The best statistics I could find quickly came from the FBI in 1993. There were 24,526 civilian homicides yet only 251 had been rated as Justifiable Homicide”. That, is 1% of all civilian killings were justifiable. Do you still want to argue you need a handgun to defend yourself?

    The same year, there were 19,000 suicides by firearm and 1,500 accidental deaths. That doesn’t include those who were injured and survived.

    Hey, ya got better stats? I’d love to see ’em.

  4. #35 – MM,

    What I object to is the poorly-hidden agenda of many “liberal” groups in fomenting this Second Amendment discord,

    I would object to that too. Do you really think the ACLU is in that crowd? Can you cite a single example of the ACLU taking a stand on gun control at all? They seem to simply avoid the issue. They do so for the same reason you cite. They don’t know exactly where to draw the line either. Perhaps it even makes sense for inner cities where cops get shot quite frequently to have different laws than rural areas where many people take guns as a sport. I don’t know. I’m certainly NOT willing to condemn the ACLU for stating that they don’t know either.

  5. Mister Mustard says:

    >>Do you really think the ACLU is in that crowd?

    I don’t know, Scottie. I would hope not. In all other areas of endeavor, I’m high-fiving the ACLU. I support them fully. However, I find myself in the same position with respect to a lot of other Dem/ lib organizations; agreeing with them on most things, but not gun control. And some of those organizations definitely DO have outlawing of all gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as one of their spoken or unspoken goals.

    I was unable to determine from the ACLU web site _exactly_ where they stood on the issue. Their wording was vague enough (of course they’re not going to come out and say that they wanted to remove all guns from the cold, dead hands of every American, even if they did) that it could encompass anything from criminalization of gun owndership to “no nukes in the backyard”.

    In any case, whether I agree with the ACLU on gun control or not, I still support them, as I think they do a fine job of protecting civil rights and defending the constitution.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 9357 access attempts in the last 7 days.