[DigitalWarrior]

I am looking for specific active reasons. I am not really interested in hearing about things they fail to do, but because of things they do that you do not agree with.

The ACLU is not a pro-gun rights group and does not lobby for it. But the NRA is not a pro-speech group and does not lobby for that either.

I am hoping for "They defended XXX against the charge of YYY based on ZZZ", or "They sued XXXX in YEAR for ZZZZ".

I could not find any threads on this in the archive. If I missed it would you point me that way?

[Standing Wolf]

Organizations that publish outright lies about the Second Amendment are hateful.

Now you know why I despise the Democratic (sic) party, most self-styled "news" organizations, and the A.C.L.U. The A.C.L.U.'s so-called "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't a mere mistake. It's a lie. Its purpose is to further the disarmament of every last law-abiding American citizen.

I hate people who intend to turn me into a serf.

[BryanP]

I don't hate them. I disagree with them on some subjects and agree with them on others.

[Monkeyleg]

First off, the NRA does support free speech. Remember the ruckus that Wayne LaPierre raised about the Incumbent Protection Act?

As for the ACLU, they defend reprehensible groups such as NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) while denying the obvious meaning of the 2nd. Yes, reprehensible speech is to be protected under the 1st, but it would seem the ACLU is very selective about which amendments they want to protect.

[Gordon Fink]

Some “conservatives” dislike the ACLU because it defends (albeit sometimes to the point of absurdity) the six articles in the Bill of Rights that they are most uncomfortable with.

~G. Fink

[nico]

like others have said, I don't hate them. I think they're just like any other lobbying group in that they don't fight for all rights, as they claim, they just fight for the rights they think are important. Here are a couple specific examples of why I do not and will not support them:
March 4, 2002

Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

They expect us to believe that "the people" in this:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
and this
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

doesn't mean the same thing as it does here, in the next sentence:
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.

The fact that they support NAMBLA makes them look even worse in my eyes.

[dasmi]

I have never liked the ACLU, for a myriad of reasons, but supporting NAMBLA takes the cake.

[Gordon Fink]

To be fair, I believe the ACLU defends NMBLA’s free-speech rights but not the “right” to rape little boys. If anyone can prove otherwise, I would like to see it.

~G. Fink

[redneck2]

I always love the part "in today's world...."

kinda like "the Constituton is a living, breathing document". Funny, I've been to the Archives in D.C. Never saw the original document taking a breath.

Kinda like people at church saying "things are different today and _____ of the Bible doesn't apply. So...you just told me that some of it is wrong. Then maybe the whole thing is wrong. Pal, if you toss part of it, you can toss all of it.

Translated, it means "I'm smarter than Jefferson and the other writers". The whole idea of the Consitution was to protect us from idiots like the ACLU that selectively interpret the sections they desire.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that talks about abortion, but they interpret it that way...for their own desires. When the Constitution was written, there was a law against cruel and unusual punishment. Capital punishment was commonly accepted in 1800 but today it's "cruel and unusual".

The wacko crap they promote has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.....their latest agenda is the terrorists at GITMO. Show me in the Constitution where foreign terrorists are protected.

Their reply is "well...this is the "right" thing to do". Wait a minute, you told me it was about the Constitution, not about what you (or someone else) thinks is right. So now, you just said it's your interpretation of right, not really what's in the Constitution.

Is there anybody here stupid enough to believe that the 1st Amendment was written to protect porn peddlers??? That's what the ACLU believes.

When the Constitution was written, the founders believed people had common sense. Unfortunately, our liberal society has changed that.

[Sam]

If you protect the right to "speak" about sodomizing little boys, you are promoting sodomizing little boys. It is that simple.

The ACLU was not founded to protect the rights of Americans.
It was organized by an avowed communist for the express purpose of using our system to destroy it self.

Read up a little on thier history, here is a quick overview.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_mays.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1338038/posts



A detailed search should find anything else you want

[Gordon Fink]

And the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist …

It never takes long for someone to come along and illustrate my point. :D

~G. Fink, who will take communists over socialists any day of the week

[Glock Glockler]

Gordon Fink,

NAMBLA was providing pamphlets that gave instructions and tips about how to abduct young boys. There comes a point when it's not their mere opinion but when those writings become an action in and of themselves.

[All-Around-Shooter]

If the Boy Scouts,The Ten Commandments,the phrase Merry CHRISTmas, Nativity scenes,and Oh Yeah, My right as an individual to protect my family
are among the things that you oppose...Then I have no use for you.

[redneck2]

Ok..so, it's all right think about raping little boys

it's all right to talk about raping little boys

it's all right to publish material about raping little boys

it's OK to discuss how to lure in and go about raping little boys

but I'm really not for it...yeah, right

sir, I'd suggest you re-visit what's left of your value system

[spacemanspiff]

i like that the ACLU fights to defend at least some of the civil rights.

however, they take it too far when they try to insist that speech, behavior and actions do not 'offend' others.
no one has the right to NOT be offended by what anyone has to say, write, etc about religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

[Delmar]

They didn't win any points with me about NAMBLA, and they cooked their own goose with their stand on the Boy Scouts, their half read of the first Amendment. I'm in perfect agreement with the government not having the right to recognise an official state religion. I also see where the government is not to interfere in the free exercise thereof.

To be fair, they have occasionally come up with some pretty good arguements, and I applaud them for it.

From Delmar-who does not tolerate communists, socialists, fascists, or anyone who dares tear down or dilute the Bill of Rights.

[redneck2]

the ACLU wants you to think they defend your rights. That's true, as long as it aligns with the right they want to protect. If not...too bad. If you disagree with them, you're obviously an uninformed buffoon, at least in their eyes.

[KLR]

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

[Gordon Fink]

NAMBLA was providing pamphlets that gave instructions and tips about how to abduct young boys.…

On this very website I can find “instruction and tips” on how to shoot people to death. Discussing either of these is not a crime in itself, though someone might use the information to commit a crime.

However, I would still like to see proof that the ACLU actually defended NMBLA in an instance like this.

~G. Fink

[redneck2]

This website promotes self-defense. I've never seen a thread that promoted executing or murdering someone. Self-defense is totally legal. If someone threatened me or my family, I'd do whatever it took to defend them and be totally correct morally and legally.

I've never seen a situation that sodomizing children is legal.

I suspect you feel you're "open-minded" by excusing the perverted actions of others. In my mind, there's little difference between those that do the deed and those that promote the deed.

Those that defend this may feel they're morally superior. In fact, they're morally reprehensible.

[Gordon Fink]

“Sodomizing” children is and has been legal in other places and times. Self-defense is and has been illegal in other places and times. Fortunately, we Americans live in a time and place where the former is mostly illegal and the latter is mostly legal.

~G. Fink

[Firethorn]

I'm of the opinion that if I don't protect even the speech I don't agree with, that I even feel is disgusting and abhorent, how can I expect others to come to my defense when somebody tries to gag me?

Now NAMBLA is a really tough scenario for me. Remember, I strongly believe in the need for free speech. But I REALLY hate what NAMBLA stands for. I have two principals contesting in my head.

Solution: Sure, they can publish what they want. I'll simply state that I support the usage of the short stake for any caught doing or attempting their action. I'll say they're sick freaks. Heck, if NAMBLA gets past the pamphlet stage, I'll donate money for advertising what sick freaks they are. I'll say the same for Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, wife beaters, etc...

Heck, if nothing else, letting them talk lets the FBI/local police agencies know who to look for. What signs to be on watch for.

Besides, anybody remember hearing about the alleged 'militia meetings' after Oklahoma city, where it turned out that every person at the 'meeting' was an agent of some sort?

[nico]

Gordon, at what point, in your opinion, does talking about sodomizing children (what some would argue is protected speech) cross the line into promoting it (which isn't protected)?

Personally, I think giving instructions on how to do it is over the line.

[redneck2]

Gordon F..that brings us back to the original point. Our fore fathers were wise enough to make legal (for the most part) that which should be legal, and vice-versa. I personally believe this was due to their strong moral values and faith.

The ACLU would have you believe in total separation of church & state. Odd...the founding fathers themselves conducted religous ceremonies in the Capital.

The ACLU (and other liberals) twist, turn, bend, and shred any part of the Constitution or law they disagree with. Note that they do this thru activist judges in wacko-extremist minority portions on the country (9th Circuit being the prime example)

Firethorn....dude, you're dropping off the deep end. In the name of political correctness you're defending perverts. Free speech isn't about saying anything you want, it's about political expression. The whole idea of free speech was to stop people from getting thrown into prison for speaking out against the King (or president, or whoever). It's not about protecting a bunch of perverts.

[fletcher]

Offhand, because their whining will remove the BSA from having future Jamborees at Ft. AP Hill in VA (been there since '81).

I also hate them because they selectively fight for bits and pieces of the Constitution they deem worthy. They are an activist, biased organization with an obvious agenda.

[boofus]

I hate the ACLU because it is bankrolled by taxpayers. There is NO REASON an American taxpayer that believes the phrase 'under God' is perfectly ok should have his/her hard earned money siphoned off to support the communist lawyers opposed to their beliefs.

If they want to defend something I don't believe in great... just don't do it with my damn money!!! :cuss: :fire: :mad:

[Glock Glockler]

Gordon,

I care not what other societies have done, we live in one based on the idea of "rights", and kidnapping and raping someone infringes on their rights.

If you're fine with NAMBLA's actions then it shouldnt bother you if the govt takes action against NAMBLA.

[roscoe]

I hate the ACLU because it is bankrolled by taxpayers.

Explain, please.

[VARifleman]

Yes, explain...

If that's true though, it'll just give me another reason to hate taxes. Not that I don't have enough reasons already :cuss:

[Kim]

Lets see how do I count the ways.. Their idea of free speech is not what the founders intended. Ther idea of "separation of church and state" is not what the founders intended. Their idea of the legal protection of Enemy combatants is obscene. If they really believe their crap about the Second Amendment then I am even more suspect of their ideas of the others. I live in a small town of about 1,200 people. Now they have a Senor Citizen center. Everyone who goes there is over 65 at least. Since some Federal Money was used the ACLU has made it quite clear no prayer is allowed before meals and yes there is one guy they have in the small town having a hissy fit making all these elderly people angry,sad, confused and I am afraid there may be a killing before long. I wonder how long they are going to let preachers go to the Nursing Homes and have church service and gospel music since Federal monies are spent there also. I resent like hell no prayer before Football Games, at Graduation etc. We even had baccaulaurate(SP) ceremonies when I graduated. This was a dress up event the Night before graduation at a local church and Yes it was religious. NONE of that anymore. Kids don't even know what it is. :cuss:

[Gordon Fink]

Gordon, at what point, in your opinion, does talking about sodomizing children (what some would argue is protected speech) cross the line into promoting it (which isn’t protected)?

When it is intended to incite a crime. For example: “John, go have sex with that little boy over there.” Which really isn’t all that unlike this: “When they come for your guns, give ’em the bullets first.” Both of these “suggestions” would be crimes under current law.

Now, if we want to talk about age-of-consent controversies, let’s do it in another thread.

~G. Fink

[Brett Bellmore]

The ACLU faced a choice a long while back, about whether to be a consistant defender of civil liberties, including those they don't like, or to just be a left-wing lobby. When confronted with the fact that a lot of their supporters simply loathed the 2nd amendment, and threatened to jump ship if they were even honest about it, let alone defended it, they blinked. So the organization is now controlled by people who are willing to toss civil liberties aside any time they conflict with the left wing agenda. Essentially, they're just another lobby advancing left-wing causes, only they call those causes "civil liberties", in order that they can wrap themselves in a Bill of Rights they don't really care about.

[CarbineKid]

The ACLU always seems to be on the wrong side of most arguments, nto to mention they have a very political agenda. For those reasos alone I despise them.

[foghornl]

A ssinine
C ommunist
L iars
U nion


Any further questions ? ? ? ?

[Sparks]

I would have thought that two pages of responses would elicit at least one specific case like the original poster asked for...

[Brett Bellmore]

Got a reading impediment, perhaps? The ACLU doesn't simply refrain from defending the 2nd amendment; I'd be cool with that. They attack it. It's not the most vigorous attack they could mount, sure, but they DO throw their not inconsiderable prestige in favor of the gun control movement's historical revisionism. And that's not something they HAVE to do, it's something they've CHOSEN to do.

[Glock Glockler]

Gordon,

I can very easily point to the second amendment and can read what it says in plain language. No one has a right to rape and kidnap boys, either legally or morally.

Please dont compare RKBA to kidnapping and raping young boys.

[Glock Glockler]

They are hardcore leftists that have their own agenda to push and do so under the guise of the Bill of Rights. We have been asked to provide sources for this criticism, so here goes:

They are pro-affirmative action

http://www.aclu.org/features/f081099a.html

They believe that the Federal govt has Constitutional authority to pass the "Fair Housing Act"

http://www.aclu.org/congress/FHAdisabilities.html

They oppose profiling that includes race (so-called racial profiling)

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n100401a.html

They don't believe that you have a right to your own property or a right to choose with whom you associate or hire

http://www.aclu.org/features/f102300a.html

This one's rich, in their classic mistaking of "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion they oppose taxpayers using taxpayer funded buildings (public schools) after hours for religous discussion. I wonder if they would object to NAMBLA using kindergardens

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n061101b.html

They believe that even though it is illegal for an 17yr old to enter into any binding legal contract, it is ok for a doctor to perform an abortion an one without parental consent.

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n082401b.html

And they also believe that you should pay for it.

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n072701b.html

All these things bother me about the ACLU but what bothers me even more is that they don't even utter a word about all the real civil rights abuses that occur. Do you think they'll get involved in helping that gun owner from Tuscon whose house was raided?

They didnt help me when a bank discriminated against me by not allowing me to open a non-interest bearing account because I refused to provide a Social Security number, which I am not required to by law though it is a de facto Federal requirement despite it's illegality.

They don't seem to care that the IRS seizes peoples property while ignoring due process, or that the Federal govt. will not publically state the true liabilities of the income tax.

In short, they will pick and choose leftist battles to fight that will give them the most publicity, and they will convinently ignore whatever parts of the Bill of Rights that don't like. I have little use for them and would much prefer a true libertarian group like the CATO institute taking on legal challenges that threaten civil rights.

[Tinker]

I think that the ACLU is Marxist. They parse out and fertilize sections of our law that pertain to "the agenda". They let the balance rot on the vine. The latter being the real goal, IMO.

[uvakat]

Okay here is my attempt to answer the original quesiton...

Here are some recent ACLU actions legal and political that I definitely disagree with...


1. And this one hits close to home. The ACLU was on City of Charlottesville PD, Virginia, for racial profiling in collection of DNA samples for a serial rapist case. The PD was asking for African American (okay I hate that term too... aren't we all just americans and not hyphinated americans?) males to volunteerly give up DNA samples to be tested against the DNA collected from the scene. Now my problem comes in with their actually acquisaton. I mean all accounts say the rapist is a black male... it would be outragious to ask for white male samples too... waste of tax payer money to test it and while I"m at it... it doesn't make sense.
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=15466&c=129

2. Ali et al, vs. Rumsfield. In this lawsuit, they are sueing the Rumsfield for the treatment of detainees at our prisions overseas, ie Iraq, Afganastian, and GITMO. I'm sorry, but the idea that we are to give non-american citizens the same rights and protection is kinda rubbing me the wrong way. IMO, US citizenship comes with it privilages. But that is just me. Yes I admit, maybe the treatment was horrible, but is suing the goverment the right answer? As much as I like the idea that the governemnt will finally be held acountable for their actions, I do not like the idea that the American military operating in what accounts to a war has to answer to the ACLU. Here is a quote from their site "The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Illinois on behalf of eight men who were subject to torture and abuse at the hands of U.S. forces under Secretary Rumsfeld's command. The groups charged Secretary Rumsfeld with violations of the U.S. Constitution and international law prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. "-- > when did the consitution apply to Iraqi citizens in IRAQ???
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17572&c=206

3. They support university Affrimative Action policies. http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=12241&c=134

4. McCreary County v. ACLU . In this case they want all mention of the 10 commandments to be taken out of the courthouses. I'm sorry, but I don't think these quacks realize that our founding fathers had a judeochristian beliefs and if I wasn't cramming for an exam I would find the quote I have from one of them that says that the 10 commandments were pretty much a foundation of American laws. The seperation between church and state does not mention that we are to totally become secular, just that the state has no right to force religion on any of their citizens (comes from the religious intolerance in England at the time).

5. I am really tired of having to keep my mouth shut and use proper PC language so I won't offend anybody... :( okay it is off to class and this stupid exam

Edit: sorry for the typos and grammatical errors... I've been up all night cramming

[boofus]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41635

When the ACLU wins a case to throw out the 10 Commandments or ban prayer in school or to burn an American flag on federal property they get awarded taxpayer money. :cuss:

[uvakat]

I forgot to add I hate what the ACLU is doing here too:

"I can't believe that Congress is allowing judges to give the ACLU thousands of dollars to sue to get rid of a cross at a veterans memorial when we are sending kids to war again to defend our freedom against terrorists," Castillo told the paper.

"The ACLU has gone too far. There are 9,000 crosses and Stars of David at Normandy. My buddies are buried there. If the ACLU can destroy the cross at the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial, then they can destroy the crosses at Normandy, or Riverside Veterans Memorial Cemetery, or Arlington National."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41635


:banghead: :banghead: :cuss: OUR SOLDIERS AND VETS DESERVE BETTER... I'm sorry a cross or a star of david offends somebody... but honestly they needs to get a life... :banghead: :fire:

[cracked butt]

The ACLU may sit well with the Left and right coast people where socialist intrusion is accepted and ecpected, but they are way out of touch with Middle America.

[Rebar]

Glock Glockler and uvakat have amply shown why the ACLU is worthy of hate.

They are, in fact, nothing more than a hard-left/communist organization which uses taxpayer money to pervert and twist the clear meaning of the Consitution,to further their goal to destroy it.

[Northslope Nimrod]

Well, here in Utah, the ACLU continually attacks the dominant religion. There are two cases where government agencies sold or leased property to the Mormon church. The ACLU has challenged both as establishing religion. Governments sell to private organizations all the time, including churches. In fact, my own city recently sold property to a less known community church.....YET the ACLU simply ignores those transactions and focuses on the dominant religion. Simply, the ACLU is :evil:

[Sean Smith]

The ACLU is hypocritical. I tend to dislike that. They cherrypick the Bill of Rights, and apply the most hard-left interpretation to the bits they like, and sue based on that. They aren't "neutral" on the 2nd Ammendment, they don't just ignore it, they actively argue against a right to keep and bear arms, right on their website.

And frankly, alot of their suits are a goddamn frivolous waste of time. WHO CARES if there is a copy of the 10 Commandments posted someplace? Who gives a rat's ass if there is a nativity scene on some public lawn? Who is actually harmed by these trivial concessions to the religion of the vast majority of the population? Think of the stunning amount of public funds wasted just defending against this nonsense, when you are talking about either a) money already spent by the government decades ago, b) money spent by the government that amounts to the cost of a good lunch, or c) stuff that doesn't cost the government a dime.

I'd be overjoyed if the ACLU legally nuked people for religious persecution, racial discrimination, and so forth. But an awful lot of their work is just litigation masturbation... it makes them feel good, grosses everone else out, and accomplishes nothing to speak of.

I personally think that the state should not invovle itself in religion at all, should not pander to any specific faith, and should not subsidize/give free goodies/etc. to any specific faith. But I'm also practical. Launching expensive legal assaults on trivial, superficial nonsense is a waste of everyone's time and a waste of vast amounts of money.

[Poodleshooter]

While posting cases is time consuming, I'm assuming the original poster would accept the ACLU's issues statements as proof of their activity?
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25
That's their position statement on guns.
That's enough of a reason for me to not donate to or support the ACLU.

Another reason:
http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenaltyMain.cfm
I don't agree here either. The government and people do have a right to issue the death penalty.

Another one:
http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRightslist.cfm?c=144 Read the essay "What's Wrong With Fetal Rights" which is linked to on this page.
The very fact that they have framed the debate around the rights of the mother rather than the rights of the baby/fetus shows an inherent bias that I disagree with them on.

This is only providing a cursory overview of a few of my disagreements,based on their publicly listed stances.
I find that I agree with the ACLU on probably less than 1/4 of their published stances.

[ravinraven]

... is just another termite chewing away on the tree of liberty.

All of these anti-liberty trash people remind me of a bacteria that invades a body, clogs it up and finally destroys it without ever being smart enough to realize that it destroys itself in the process.

What do these people think their own lives are going to look like if they manage to kill off liberty?

rr

[Gordon Fink]

Please dont compare RKBA to kidnapping and raping young boys.

I did no such thing. I compared inciting the repugnant crime of raping children to inciting the arguably more repugnant crime of murdering law-enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.

We have a right to arms, but there is no right to murder cops. There is no right to rape children, but NAMBLA’s argument is that children have the right to participate in consensual sexual relationships with adults, which I personally think is too far of a stretch.

Yes, the ACLU cherry-picks the Bill of Rights, but so do most gun owners and pro-RKBA organizations. I’m not satisfied with the ideological consistency of either, but it would appear I need both in order to defend all of my rights.

~G. Fink

[TheDutchman]

Founded by a Communist and funded by the Peoples Republic of China. Do I need to say more

[nico]

They believe that even though it is illegal for an 17yr old to enter into any binding legal contract, it is ok for a doctor to perform an abortion an one without parental consent.

Here's another example of how ridiculous the argument that minors should be able to get abortions without consent is. My dad is a dentist. He has had to turn away a kid who wanted to get a cleaning on the day bevore his 18th birthday because they couldn't get ahold of his mother. Just in case anybody is unaware, as a medical procedure, an abortion is MUCH more serious and stressful on the body than a dental cleaning.

[rock jock]

ACLU is for anything that is:

- anti-Christian
- anti-family
- anti-RKBA
- anti-American

Therefore, I am anti-ACLU.

[DigitalWarrior]

Please point me towards their defense of NAMBLA. I have a feeling that the people attacking the ACLU for it get information soley from Faux News.

Redneck rebuttal
Kinda like people at church saying "things are different today and _____ of the Bible doesn't apply. So...you just told me that some of it is wrong. Then maybe the whole thing is wrong. Pal, if you toss part of it, you can toss all of it.
IIRC J-Man and his crew talked about slaves rights. Slaves do not belong in the world today. But not killing people is a pretty good idea. DO you eat meat and cheese together? I guess stuff does change.

The wacko crap they promote has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.....their latest agenda is the terrorists at GITMO. Show me in the Constitution where foreign terrorists are protected.
What about American Citizens arrested on American soil and not charged with a crime and denied access to lawyers? But even foreigners are guaranteed. “No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;” No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON No PERSON Were they in the land or naval forces? No, otherwise they would be POWs or enlisted on our side. Were they in our militia during times of war or public danger? No.

Is there anybody here stupid enough to believe that the 1st Amendment was written to protect porn peddlers??? That's what the ACLU believes.
That is a terrible argument, calling anyone who holds an opinion contrary to yours a derogatory name. Sad. Yes I believe that I can say or do what I want so long as it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your legs (Paraphrased from TJ).

SAM Rebuttal
If you protect the right to "speak" about sodomizing little boys, you are promoting sodomizing little boys. It is that simple.
That is just silly. I can talk about killing you, but I am not promoting it. I have read books where Tom Clancy talks about nuking the capital, but he is not promoting it…

Glock – A question
NAMBLA was providing pamphlets that gave instructions and tips about how to abduct young boys. There comes a point when it's not their mere opinion but when those writings become an action in and of themselves.
Please provide evidence of this. At least give me the information so that I can look it up. I want to understand their viewpoint. Then I may decide to stop my association with them.

Spaceman Rebuttal
however, they take it too far when they try to insist that speech, behavior and actions do not 'offend' others. It seems that some people here are offended because they defend offensive speech, and others are saying that they make sure that no offensive speech is uttered. I must be confused, could you clear it up?

NICO – An Answer
At what point, in your opinion, does talking about sodomizing children (what some would argue is protected speech) cross the line into promoting it (which isn't protected)?

Personally, I think giving instructions on how to do it is over the line.
The line is crossed when it is no longer talking about how, but commanding a person to do it.

Redneck, come on
The whole idea of free speech was to stop people from getting thrown into prison for speaking out against the King (or president, or whoever). It's not about protecting a bunch of perverts.
I did not see an exception made for perversion, would you point it out to me?

Fletcher Rebuttal
Offhand, because their whining will remove the BSA from having future Jamborees at Ft. AP Hill in VA (been there since '81).

I also hate them because they selectively fight for bits and pieces of the Constitution they deem worthy. They are an activist, biased organization with an obvious agenda.
Well 1981 is hardly a tradition. I object to having money taken from me and given to support a group that does not allow atheists or gays. Would you take the money from me and give it to support a group I do not like. If so can I take some of your money and give it to the ACLU?

Boofus, please clarify
I hate the ACLU because it is bankrolled by taxpayers. There is NO REASON an American taxpayer that believes the phrase 'under God' is perfectly ok should have his/her hard earned money siphoned off Please tell me how you get taxed for the ACLU. I have never heard of this.

Brett
The ACLU faced a choice a long while back, about whether to be a consistant defender of civil liberties, including those they don't like, or to just be a left-wing lobby.
No organization defends all rights. Why are you so opposed to the ACLU as opposed to the NRA which did nothing for Jose Padilla?

Foghorn
A ssinine
C ommunist
L iars
U nion
Is this the best argument you can craft. I know you can do better than “NaNaNaNANA”

Bret
Got a reading impediment, perhaps? The ACLU doesn't simply refrain from defending the 2nd amendment; I'd be cool with that. They attack it.
Dude, walk the high road. Second, when have they attacked it in court?

Glock – Strawman is dead, stop stabbing it
No one has a right to rape and kidnap boys, either legally or morally.
Please show me where either the ACLU or anyone in this thread advocated raping/kidnapping anything. Specific instance please. I couldn’t find it, but then I may have a reading impediment.

My statement on the specific instances will follow.

[DigitalWarrior]

There are a couple of things I disagree with that I have discovered here. But then again the NRA isn't classicly liberal enough for me either.

Their stands on race piss me off. Is there any group who I should join that more closely reflects my libertarian beliefs?

Glock, please repost your links, I am getting 404ed.

[dmallind]

I think some people need to learn what "Communist" and "Socialist" mean. To my knowledge the ACLU takes no legal position on whether government should own the means of production or use a central control agency to specify economic activity. If they did I suspect they'd be against it since it would infringe on civil liberties.

Hate to break it to at least one of you guys too, but the US Government is bankrolled by Communist China too and will be as long as the supposedly "better" political party keeps running massive deficits - since they are an extremely significant purchaser of US Treasury Bonds.

As far as the First Amendment goes I think the ACLU, while not universally correct IMHO, are closer than most here seem to eb. I ask any of you who thinks that the establishment clause refers only to a national denomination to tell me what the "thereof" in the free exercise clause refers to. Clearly to make any grammatical or logical sense whatsoever, establishment and free exercise MUST refer to the same thing or the thereof would not be there. Since it's patent nonsense to think that only a national denomination can be freely exercised, but instead all and any religious belief can be freely exercised, then all and any religious belief cannot be established either. Please direct me to the religion which to be freely exercised requires its symbols to be placed on public property,

BTW the vast majority of Church-State lawsuits the ACLU files are filed on behalf of churches. The MSM oinly fixates on the few which are filed against Cecil B DeMille movie tie-ins which are somehow seen by many as part and parcel of the nation's history and tradition.

[jefnvk]

Well, it seems that others have already taken care of pro/anti ACLU. I will comment on one phrase though:

I'm sorry, but the idea that we are to give non-american citizens the same rights and protection is kinda rubbing me the wrong way.

The Bill of Rights is simply clairfying what all people are born with. This means all people have these rights, not just American citizens.

[Sean Smith]

Yes, the ACLU cherry-picks the Bill of Rights, but so do most gun owners and pro-RKBA organizations. I’m not satisfied with the ideological consistency of either, but it would appear I need both in order to defend all of my rights.

The difference is, last I checked, the NRA hasn't staked out a position denying the 1st Ammendment guarantees an individual right of freedom of speech. The ACLU has staked out a position denying the 2nd Ammendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU is denying the very existence of a fundamental right that is affirmed by the Constitution. Therefore, Your comparison is invalid in the extreme.

[Sean Smith]

The Bill of Rights is simply clairfying what all people are born with. This means all people have these rights, not just American citizens.

Untrue. The Bill of Rights is an ammendment (well, 10 of them...) to the fundamental law of the United States of America, not a magic gift certificate for everyone on Earth. As a law, it applies to some people and not others. Traditionally, national laws do not apply to foreign nationals outside the borders of said nation.

[RealGun]

Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. - nico #6 quoting ACLU

The Constitution says nothing about police or first and second class citizens.

[griz]

Please tell me how you get taxed for the ACLU. I have never heard of this.

An ACLU rep was on the a local radio show and explained this. He said in some specific Federal cases the law allows the winner to be reimbursed for some of the attorneys fees. He said that it would be hard to estimate the amount because there are many ACLU "branches" across the country and that makes a total difficult to come by. He did estimate that it would be a small number.
Interestingly, the different localitities of the ACLU have even opposed each other in court, as they are free to interpet the law differently.

My 2 cents, They are neither good or bad. As Digital W has implied, they are to the 1st A what the NRA is to the 2nd A. I probably agree with their position just over half the time. And yes, I can see defending the free speech rights of somebody I disagree with. It's the freedom loving part of me that has a wierd notion that the guy has the right to say something that I that I think is wrong.

[Gordon Fink]

The ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment is wrong. There’s no doubt about that, but the ACLU seems to have it mostly right on six out of the other nine. Compare that to the mere two out of 10 amemdments that are fully supported by most pro-RKBA members right here on the High Road.

~G. Fink

[rock jock]

Untrue. The Bill of Rights is an ammendment (well, 10 of them...) to the fundamental law of the United States of America, not a magic gift certificate for everyone on Earth. As a law, it applies to some people and not others. Traditionally, national laws do not apply to foreign nationals outside the borders of said nation. As good an explanation as I have heard. Of course, libertarians generally do not subscribe to the notion of national sovereignty in the first place; OTOH they are quick to point out how we should not be poking our noses in other country's business. Hmmm.....quite a conundrum there.

I can talk about killing you, but I am not promoting it.
I would not be so sure that talking about killing a specific person is not a crime.

Why are you so opposed to the ACLU as opposed to the NRA which did nothing for Jose Padilla?
You mean the same Jose who was making plans to detonate a dirty bomb in the US?

[Brett Bellmore]

I did no such thing. I compared inciting the repugnant crime of raping children to inciting the arguably more repugnant crime of murdering law-enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.

Raping children is always wrong. Killing law-enforcement officers in the performance of their duty is only contingently wrong. The SS in Nazi Germany were "law enforcement officers", for instance. Was killing them wrong?

So when somebody says, "If the law comes after me to do "X", I'll kill them!", whether that's a repugnant statement is highly dependent on the nature of "X". Some of us think that organized efforts to extinguish a basic civil liberty qualify.

[DigitalWarrior]

I completely agree that if the government is shown to be violating the constituional rights of people, it should pay all costs. Otherwise, it is only the wealthy who can sue the government, because even if you win, you lose the money you spent on lawyers.

RockJock,
You mean the same Jose who was making plans to detonate a dirty bomb in the US?
No I mean Jose Padilla who has not even been charged with a crime. Jose is a US Citizen. He was arrested on US soil. You state that he was planning to detonate a dirty bomb. Please point me to proof of your accusation. Or is evidence too much to ask?

I trusted Bush when he said WMD was in Iraq based on CLASSIFIED evidence. Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me twice, not gonna happen.

Brett,
I can write a book about how safes work and how to break into them. I can talk about security vulnerabilities in computer programs and how they can be exploited.

[DigitalWarrior]

Untrue. The Bill of Rights is an ammendment (well, 10 of them...) to the fundamental law of the United States of America, not a magic gift certificate for everyone on Earth. As a law, it applies to some people and not others. Traditionally, national laws do not apply to foreign nationals outside the borders of said nation

Yet they apply to FN inside the nations borders in many cases. So where is GitMo? Is it Cuba's? Is it the US's? If I kidnap you, then take you to Gitmo, then kill you, according to US law, am I guilty of kidnapping, or kidnapping and murder? Who has the power to arrest me on GitMo? If it is the US military, then who gave permission for the Military to be there?

[Brett Bellmore]

Brett,
I can write a book about how safes work and how to break into them. I can talk about security vulnerabilities in computer programs and how they can be exploited.

And did I say you couldn't? I'm one of those "No law means NO LAW" people; I'm probably more of a First amendment absolutist than most members of the ACLU's board. Problem is, I'm a Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth amendment absolutist, too.

And as you may have noticed with Strossen's remark about civil liberties not being "coextensive" with the Bill of Rights, the people who run the ACLU aren't even fond of much of the Bill of Rights, let alone absolutist about them.

She could have said that civil liberties "weren't limited to" the Bill of Rights, and that would have been fine. "Aren't coextensive" means that she refuses to admit some rights actually LISTED the Bill of Rights are civil liberties. Which is flat out a crock.

[Gordon Fink]

Raping children is always wrong. Killing law-enforcement officers in the performance of their duty is only contingently wrong.

Brett, please read my entire post. NAMBLA makes the same contingent argument about sex with children. I think they are wrong, but they still have the right to discuss the idea so long as they don’t act on it or intentionally incite someone to act on it.

~G. Fink

[Ala Dan]

My main reason for hating the ACLU is the fact that they are totally
against the death penalty; and they try to get any (and all) scum-
bags off of Death Row.

[LawDog]

I think they are wrong, but they still have the right to discuss the idea so long as they don’t act on it or intentionally incite someone to act on it.

So, what defines 'incitement'?

What would you consider inciting someone to commit pedophilia? When someone comes to you and confesses that he is lusting after a 10 year-old boy, and you tell him that his feelings are natural, would that be inciting?

NAMBLA did this, and is doing this now.

Would you consider it to be inciting someone to commit pedophilia if they confess to you, and you tell them that their feelings are perfectly natural, and that it would be unhealthy for them to supress their lust towards this 10 year-old boy, hmm?

This is the reason for the existence of NAMBLA.

If someone comes to you and tells you that they lust after a 10 year-old boy, but they are afraid of the law, and you assure them taht if they get caught, you will help them flee the country to safety, would you consider that to be inciting?

In other words, if somebody says, "I want to have sex with this kid, but I'm afraid I'll get caught" and you reply, "You won't get caught, but if you do, we'll help you flee the country and pass the hat for for some spending money."

Would you think of that as incitement? NAMBLA does this and more all the time.

Now, let us meditate on another case, specifically, SPLC v. Tom Metzger, et al., and compare it with this one.

Metzger hated anyone who wasn't white, and spoke publically about doing illegal things to them.

NAMBLA loves 10 year-old boys and speaks about doing illegal things with them.

People who listened to Metzger took a baseball bat and used it to beat a non-white person to death.

People who listened to NAMBLA kidnapped a 10 year-old boy and did the illegal things that NAMBLA espouses to him. Then they killed him.

Tom Metzger was sued by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

NAMBLA is being sued by the parents of the raped and slain boy.

Anyone want to guess how much help the ACLU donated to Tom Metzger and his First Amendment rights?

Okay, now let's talk about Matt Hale. Again, Matt Hale is a bottom-feeding white supremacist, right down there with child molesters. One Benjamin Smith, a follower of Matt Hale, hauled off and did the things that Matt Hale has been publically speaking of. Matt Hale wound up in a lawsuit over the killings. Any guesses as to ACLU involvement in this violation of Hale's First Amendment rights?

Bueller? Bueller?

Yeah.

Tom Metzger talks about killing minorities. Someone takes him up on it. Metzger gets sued. Silence from the ACLU.

Matt Hale talks about killing minorities. Someone takes him up on it. Hale gets sued. Silence from the ACLU.

NAMBLA talks about raping young boys. Someone takes them up on it. NAMBLA gets sued. Hell, the ACLU is all over this case! This is a landmark case for the protection of the First Amendment!

ACLU intones solemnly that if NAMBLA was to lose this case, it would be catastrophic for the First Amendment.

Horse apples.

It's going to be just as catastrophic for the First Amendment as the other similar cases that the ACLU couldn't be interested in.

LawDog

[davec]

I give money to the ACLU and the NRA, so I think I got the bill of rights covered. Now if we can just have an orginzatin that fights for the 9th and 10th admendments.

[Brett Bellmore]

I know they make the same argument, Gordon, more or less anyway. The difference is that in their case, it's transparent sophistry, and only pedophiles take it seriously. Whereas practically EVERYONE accepts that there are circumstances under which it's appropriate to kill a police officer enforcing the law... Though they may just want to deny that those circumstances would ever occur in their own country.

[Standing Wolf]

Is there any group who I should join that more closely reflects my libertarian beliefs?

http://www.lp.org
http://www.nra.org
http://www.gunowners.org

[Rebar]

Some folks here are confused.

The ACLU doesn't give a hang about the 1st amendment, or any other amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

Their purpose is to use it, and the American legal system, to advance their radical left-wing agenda. As LawDog posted, they are very selective as to which cases they take, ie cases that push their agenda along. Cases that are just as valid, if not more so, but don't push their agenda are ignored. Civil liberties, like the right to keep and bear arms, are against their agenda, therefore they fight against it.

Even with the 1st amendment, look at what they do. Example: NAMBLA deserves protection, but the Boy Scouts must be destroyed. And how about "hate speech" codes at universities and "campaign finance reform"? Those are clear violations of free speech, but you don't see the ACLU doing anything about them. Why? Because they think it advances their left-wing agenda.

[Firethorn]

Firethorn....dude, you're dropping off the deep end. In the name of political correctness you're defending perverts. Free speech isn't about saying anything you want, it's about political expression. The whole idea of free speech was to stop people from getting thrown into prison for speaking out against the King (or president, or whoever). It's not about protecting a bunch of perverts.

And NAMBLA's talking about changing the age of consent. I'd say that's political. Like I said, I deliberately define free speech very, very liberally. And I also believe that driving them underground only makes them harder to monitor. Heck, there are people out there that consider our love of guns as or worse than NAMBLA's perversions.

[Glock Glockler]

Digital Warrior,

Do a google search for "NAMBLA" and "pamphlet".

Aside from that, there is no strawman arguement, comparing self-defense, even if against a cop following his orders, to providing info to people for the purpose of raping boys is not equivilant.

It'll be a bit before I get new links, I cut and pasted a post I made on TFL 2 years back, that's probably why they don't work

so long as they don’t act on it or intentionally incite someone to act on it

There's the rub, if one can prove any intent on their part the law should come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Northslope Nimrod]

Digital Warrior states that he "believed" Bush when he said WMD's were in IRAQ. This more than implies that Bush lied about WMD. If you believe that.....please research the number of governments that agreed with Bush, the number of Intelligence agencies that agreed with Bush, the number of democrats that agreed with Bush, the number of former presidents and vice presidents and presidential candidates that agreed with Bush. The Bush lied argument is never made by someone with credibility. I suppose that becuase WMD's have not been found in Irag, they obviously never existed. Intelligent deduction......not!
Remember everyone else responding on this thread...."A person convinced against his will.....is of the same opinion still." Some people just will not accept truth.

[DigitalWarrior]

I googled the case and came up with the following:

The legal argument that the parents of the victim are making is that NAMBLA's publications fostered an atmosphere that caused the crime to take place. That's right - they do not allege that there was anything that specifically instructed Jaynes to rape and kill a child, that either their publications or their website provided any material support for the crime, or even that it advocated committing such a crime, only that the "totality of the child sex environment" advocated by NAMBLA somehow caused this to happen. In fact, the defendants filed a motion early on in the case asking that the plaintiffs spell out specifically what statements or expressions in either the group's publications or website could reasonably be construed as causing Jaynes to commit this crime. The amended complaint did not do so, referring instead only to the general "climate" fostered by NAMBLA. And herein lies the crux of the case.

Once we establish the legal principle that groups which advocate changing the laws can be held responsible for the actions of those who break the laws, the sky is the limit for such lawsuits. What is now legal advocacy aimed at changing the laws would be suppressed by the need to avoid civil damages. And the principle of individual responsibility would be undermined in America yet again.

It came from an article in National Review Online. They refrenced a quote from the prosecuting attorney (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp). About a book that NAMBLA never even published (http://www.soc-um.org/nambla2.html)

Everyone who is complaining about a rape manual needs to do some damned research. I just spent an hour trying to track down a steaming pile of hearsay. The manual 1. Was never distributed. 2. Was never Published, 3. Was Never even completed.

Check your assumptions.

[DigitalWarrior]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

{insanity}
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Thousands Dead, and it is my fault.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA{/insanity}

I abdigated my responsibility to demand evidence before supporting the use of military forces outside of a war. I actually defended Bush. I said "He knows something he can't tell me". I actually said that. He made me a fool. He LIED. HE SAID THEY WERE THERE. He did not say he thought they were there. He did not say that all available unreliable evidence says they are there. HE SAID THEY WERE THERE. POWELL SAID THAT HE HAD PICTURES!!!

Edited to add: I am going to ask a question in another thread. THis way I hope to avoid subject drift.

[orionengnr]

anyone respond to Lawdog's post.

Silence is deafening....but I'm still listening.

[DigitalWarrior]

I think they are wrong, but they still have the right to discuss the idea so long as they don’t act on it or intentionally incite someone to act on it.

So, what defines 'incitement'?

What would you consider inciting someone to commit pedophilia? When someone comes to you and confesses that he is lusting after a 10 year-old boy, and you tell him that his feelings are natural, would that be inciting?

No, because you are not compelling him to do it

NAMBLA did this, and is doing this now.

Would you consider it to be inciting someone to commit pedophilia if they confess to you, and you tell them that their feelings are perfectly natural, and that it would be unhealthy for them to supress their lust towards this 10 year-old boy, hmm?

This is the reason for the existence of NAMBLA.

And they say that in order to combat this unhealthyness, they should get laws changed.

If someone comes to you and tells you that they lust after a 10 year-old boy, but they are afraid of the law, and you assure them taht if they get caught, you will help them flee the country to safety, would you consider that to be inciting?
That did not happen, read the earlier post about where the rape manual charge originated
In other words, if somebody says, "I want to have sex with this kid, but I'm afraid I'll get caught" and you reply, "You won't get caught, but if you do, we'll help you flee the country and pass the hat for for some spending money."

Would you think of that as incitement? NAMBLA does this and more all the time.please proviide evidence of it. I could not find it.

Now, let us meditate on another case, specifically, SPLC v. Tom Metzger, et al., and compare it with this one.

Metzger hated anyone who wasn't white, and spoke publically about doing illegal things to them.

NAMBLA loves 10 year-old boys and speaks about doing illegal things with them. They apparently advise against it

People who listened to Metzger took a baseball bat and used it to beat a non-white person to death.

People who listened to NAMBLA kidnapped a 10 year-old boy and did the illegal things that NAMBLA espouses to him. Then they killed him. get the facts from my earlier post. NAMBLA NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS

Tom Metzger was sued by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

NAMBLA is being sued by the parents of the raped and slain boy.

Anyone want to guess how much help the ACLU donated to Tom Metzger and his First Amendment rights?
Care to inform those of us who do not follow the white power movement?

Okay, now let's talk about Matt Hale. Again, Matt Hale is a bottom-feeding white supremacist, right down there with child molesters. One Benjamin Smith, a follower of Matt Hale, hauled off and did the things that Matt Hale has been publically speaking of. Matt Hale wound up in a lawsuit over the killings. Any guesses as to ACLU involvement in this violation of Hale's First Amendment rights?
Care to inform those of us who do not follow the white power movement?
Bueller? Bueller?
Pinnacle of logical debate, I bow before... oh wait, no I don't
Yeah.

Tom Metzger talks about killing minorities. Someone takes him up on it. Metzger gets sued. Silence from the ACLU.

Matt Hale talks about killing minorities. Someone takes him up on it. Hale gets sued. Silence from the ACLU.

NAMBLA talks about raping young boys. Someone takes them up on it. NAMBLA gets sued. Hell, the ACLU is all over this case! This is a landmark case for the protection of the First Amendment!

Please read why this is a landmark case in my post. There WAS NO INCITEMENT. The complaint was against the "atmosphere"

ACLU intones solemnly that if NAMBLA was to lose this case, it would be catastrophic for the First Amendment.
It would

Horse apples.

It's going to be just as catastrophic for the First Amendment as the other similar cases that the ACLU couldn't be interested in.

Two-Part Answer:
1. It is not the same thing. NAMBLA never advises someone to break the law. The WhitePower idiots did.
2. If it were the same thing (it's not) it wouldn't even matter because you have to pick and choose battles. The NRA does not help EVERYBODY arrested for breaking ANY unconstitutional gun law. They choose. So does the ACLU.

DigitalWarrior.

I still do not like any of their stands which relate to race. And I am looking for First Amendment Alternatives (like CATO)

[rock jock]

He LIED.
You need to look up the definition of a "lie." A lie is an intentionally untruthful statement. Bush made a statement based on the best information he had on hand, provided to him by US and foreign intelligence. That information was wrong, as we know now. But unless you have information that Bush knew this information to be false, you should retract your accusation.

[Bear Gulch]

My problem is the selection criteria for those they advocate for. NAMBLA condones and promotes abuse of children. If they can support pedophiles and folks who are worried about,"under God", being included in the pledge they are not looking at the most pressing issues in our society toady. Do we need advocates for the unpopular and downtroden, yes. But the ACLU has simply become a bulwark for those who have no desire other than tearing this country down one piece at a time.

[Gordon Fink]

LawDog, which is worse? Rape or murder?

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis, so it doesn’t just help “leftists.”

Inciting crimes? A prosecutor brings charges. The defendant has the right to a fair trial and a legal defense. That’s America! Why do so many “conservatives” hate America?

~G. Fink

[DigitalWarrior]

:)

[nico]

LawDog, which is worse? Rape or murder?
that depends on the person. Plenty of molestation victims comit suicide because they can't live with what happened to them, so I guess that shows how they feel. Rape should be a capital offense imo.

[LawDog]

LawDog, which is worse? Rape or murder?

Since the child of the people suing NAMBLA was both raped and murdered, I'd say your question doesn't apply.

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis, so it doesn’t just help “leftists.”

It helped neo-nazis when they were shooting off their mouths.

When people died because neo-nazis were shooting off their mouths, the ACLU was nowhere to be found. It wasn't a First Amendment issue.

Now that people have died because NAMBLA is shooting off it's mouth, suddenly it's a First Amendment issue.

Inciting crimes? A prosecutor brings charges.

It's civil case. There is no prosecutor, only the plaintiffs.

The defendant has the right to a fair trial and a legal defense.

This defendant does not have the right to have multi-million-dollar lawyers and a professional grade PR department at my expense. This defendant does not have the right to camoflage their conspiracy into past child molestations and child murders under the flag of the First Amendment at my expense.

No, that's not a typo. Yes, you and I will be paying for the ACLU to defend NAMBLA pro bono. The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act, enacted into Federal law in 1976 allows the Federal Government to pay the attorney's fees in civil rights cases. The ACLU loves this law.

That’s America! Why do so many “conservatives” hate America?

No, that's not America. That's my tax money going to fund the ACLU to allow them to hide a bunch of perverts under the First Amendment.

In America, if the ACLU wants to defend a bunch of child-molesting murderers, then they by-God spend their own damned money to do it -- not mine.

LawDog

[Rebar]

I'd like to know why NAMBLA is entitled to a top-notch legal defense by the ACLU, while the Boy Scouts are the target of literally a jihad by them.

[Standing Wolf]

Rape should be a capital offense imo.

The majority of rapes aren't sex crimes, but symbolic murders, and the people who commit them should be dealt with accordingly.

[DigitalWarrior]

Lawdog
I am not sure that you are aware of the backstory. NAMBLA ahd nothing to do with the molestation/murder of this child. The Parents were suing over the "atmosphere of NAMBLA." The Pamphlet that others are mentioning was an UNCOMPLETED book that was NEVER PUBLISHED and NEVER DISTRIBUTED.

They are suing because the "atmoshpere said the age-of-consent rules were wrong".

Oleg of THR is exactly as criminal as that. He advocates changing gun-laws because they are immoral. He runs a board where people are communicating about shooting government people. He has a web-site that compares our fine police with Nazis. The general enviornment he has established runs contrary to the accepted standards of decency. If one of our members went out and killed a government official, Oleg would be EXACTLY as culpable as NAMBLA.

Which is why I think that the suit is rediculous. And I am proud to say "I support NAMBLA". (That single quote ruins any chance I have of holding office)

Please explain to me how I am wrong.

[LawDog]

Oleg of THR is exactly as criminal as that.

Incorrect.

If Oleg advertised hunting trips for politicans, took money, arranged for transportation, and then guided a group of rifle-armed people to the Capitoal building in Washington, then he'd be as criminal as that.

If Oleg ran a board which talked of nothing other than political assassination, encouraged people to randomly kill any politicain who irritated them, and promised to get any political assassin out of the country to safety - and did so on numerous occasions, then he'd be as criminal as that.

Try it. Start a thread with a post giving detailed examples of a plan for killing ex-President Clinton, from type of gun, to sniper position, with schedule and holes in his security here on THR and see how fast Oleg shuts it down.

As far as the pamphlet goes, we'll discuss your errors there when I get off duty.

LawDog

[dmallind]

The ACLU is an equal opportunity annoyer, as is any group with consistent principles applied apolitically.


ACLU defends racists spewing hate:
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8640&c=42&Type=s

ACLU defends right-wing druggie talk radio host spewing decidedly unMarxist unCommunist vitriol - and yep some hate too.
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14698&c=27

ACLU defends evangelical prolifers
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86

ACLU defends religious expression (PRIVATE religious expression - that's the difference fundies often miss. No atheist group, no civil liberties group, no leftist group I know of cares about or wants to stop YOU taking a position on religion - just wants to stop the GOVERNMENT from doing so. The only exception to this is the criticism of employers who fire people for not having the same religious beliefs - but even here it is not the boss's belief that is the problem - it is his actions hurting those who do not share them)
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17598&c=38

And heck for the Libertarian wing of THR - how about the ACLU defends anti-tax tin foil hatters:
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12525&c=83

and against a National ID:
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13604&c=130


Damn those pinko commie anti-Christian leftists and their biased agenda!


Edited to correct a rather unintentionally amusing - to me at least - "Freudian" slip..

....wants to stop YOU taking a possession on religion :evil:

[Gordon Fink]

Okay. Clearly many folks think rape is as bad or worse than murder. I had assumed the opposite, so I can no longer speculate on the ACLU’s opinion on that question.

The specific case under discussion also involved a murder, so my question is further invalidated. However, DigitalWarrior has twice demonstrated that the suit against NAMBLA was groundless.

The ACLU still has the right to defend whomever it chooses. If you don’t like the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, please contact your Congressmen. I’m also quite sure that the Boy Scouts of America can take care of themselves.

If the “sex perverts” are stifled, I fear the “gun perverts” will be soon to follow.

~G. Fink

[cracked butt]

Alright! The ACLU was on the right side of thing a 1/2 dozen times, where do I sign up, and where should I send a check to? :rolleyes:

[dmallind]

Maybe you should do your own research for a little bit more than the 30 seconds it took me to find those "half dozen" examples - one of which, had you even bothered to follow work already done for you, contains more than twice that number of cases in a short time period. Then you might find that you really do want to send them a check.

I repeat for those of you who think the ACLU is out to get your invisible friend (which seems to be the biggest beef of most anti-ACLUers) - the vast majority - I have heard 95% but cannot substantiate that - of church state actions taken by the ACLU are on behalf of churches. I'm guessing not many of them are Satanic churches although yes I expect the ACLU would indeed defend one too - just like the BOR does.

[Rebar]

Maybe you could take another 30 seconds, and explain why NAMBLA is entitled to a top-notch legal defense by the ACLU (at taxpayer expense), while the Boy Scouts are the target of a jihad to destroy them (at taxpayer expense).

[Gordon Fink]

The BSA is a large, well-funded organization. Perhaps, like many Christian organizations, it wants special recognition and/or privileges from the government, which would explain the ACLU’s opposition to their cases?

~G. Fink

[dmallind]

Don't know if NAMBLA is being defended at taxpayer expense. Doubt it.

That said more eloquent arguments for that defense by the ACLU than I could do have already been posted, but I'll try to add mine.

NAMBLA is an advocacy group. They advocate for an illegal activity. So do many advocacy groups, some of which you or I may agree with (perhaps not the same ones) and some of which we won't.

We cannot differentiate and legislate based on our preferred illegal activities. Either advocacy for legalizing illegal acts is protected or it is not. Arguments exist to support both options although I tend to prefer the former myself. Currently this is the law and the BOR as it stands - advocating for illegal acts is protected. I have seen no evidence, and would be both highly surprised AND highly condemnatory of the ACLU if any exists, that the ACLU has supported or filed briefs on behalf of the ACTION of child rape or even the ABETTING of child rape. I am perfectly OK with, and think you should be too, with their support on behalf of ADVOCATING for legalization of child rape. This is NOT the same as supporting child rape on my part or on theirs. I support the right of political parties whose policies I think would be far more damaging than NAMBLAs to advocate for those policies. That is not the same as supporting those policies. Unless you are a totalitarian of the highest order I suspect you join me here.

Unpleasant and distasteful though it may be, we must accord the same rights to those with whom we disagree that we want for ourselves, or we become tyrants.

The BSA "jihad" is simple to explain. The BSA enjoys government support and use of public property. The public, and the government, includes and accords equal rights to (at least theoretically anyway if not in practice) gays and atheists. The BSA does not, and therefore amounts to a governmental preference for their religious and ideological restrictions.

Now the decision went the other way because the BSA is a private institution and private institutions can, and I think should indeed be able to, set their own requirements. I have no problem with that. However exclusionary groups should not enjoy preferential support and accommodation from govrenment. If the BSA didn't use public property and public funds I would agree with you here, but they do.

[Rebar]

Perhaps, like many Christian organizations, it wants special recognition and/or privileges from the government, which would explain the ACLU’s opposition to their cases?
BSA is NOT a "Christian organization", all religions are accepted including Moslems and Buddists. It gets no funding from the government, all it needs are places to meet, which are always during non-business hours.

The opposition by the ACLU comes from the fact that BSA won't allow NAMBLA members to be scout leaders. If you think that NAMBLA members should be allowed to be scoutmasters, then by all means support the ACLU.

[cracked butt]

I can almost agree with the ACLU's postion on the BSA, no matter how much it pains me. On hte other hand, I will never cut the ACLU a check until they start suing the government over the questionaires and preference points system used to influence public University admissions and government employment, or the government's preference for minority owned contractors. Until they change their position on affirmative action, the organization is a bunch of hypocrites. :rolleyes:

[dmallind]

Darrell Lambert is not a NAMBLA member. He's a fine upstanding clean cut heterosexual young man (I know this because I met him with his girlfriend) and IIRC a shooter too.

He was also an exemplary Eagle Scout. He was kicked out of the BSA for not believing in any god. The BSA certainly do not accept those of all religious positions.

[dmallind]

Without the same conclusion I agree with you on that position crackedbutt. While racism is undoubtedly a fact of life, I believe other mechanisms are more appropriate to deal with its effects rather than affirmative action. I am also consistent here too - I don't think universities should give points to ANYONE for lineage or ancestry or in fact anything not related to academic merit. This includes legacy admissions no matter how rich or influential the applicants parents and forebears are. How can allowing in unqualified applicants because they are named Bush or Kennedy (nothing political here - apply it to all stripes) be any less wrong than allowing in less qualified applicants because they are black when both are simply accidents of birth not indications of merit?

[Tinker]

Gordon Fink,

In one of your posts to LawDog you said:

"The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis, so it doesn’t just help “leftists.”

You were trying to show the defence of this group as an example of how politically well rounded the ACLU is. Neo-nazis idolize Hitler and his movement, right? I always heard that the Nazi Party was really called the "National Socialist German Worker's Party". Note the word "socialist" in there. Hitler and his ilk were/are authoritarian leftist, not rightists. The battles between Stalin and Hilter during WW2 were more like a political "family feud" than anything else.

[Rebar]

He was also an exemplary Eagle Scout. He was kicked out of the BSA for not believing in any god. The BSA certainly do not accept those of all religious positions.
By your logic, the ACLU should be sueing NAMBLA for not allowing women to join.

[Gordon Fink]

BSA is NOT a “Christian organization”, all religions are accepted including Moslems and Buddists. It gets no funding from the government, all it needs are places to meet, which are always during non-business hours.

I phrased my speculation as a question, because I wasn’t sure of the details, but dmallind has since provided them. I still appear to be correct, except perhaps for the point on which specific religion BSA favors.

~G. Fink

[richyoung]

...The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis, so it doesn’t just help “leftists.”

Ah, I see, (as I suspected), Mr Fink is in need of some remedial education. :) "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist",..and as we all know, socialism is LEFT on the political spectrum, (if one chooses to use a "left-right" spectrum, which in itself is another kind of error/false argument). Mr. Fink, let's say for the sake of argument that your faulty theory is correct - that the Nazis were RIGHT-wing, and that the Communists were/are LEFT wing. Now, as one is being stood up against the wall to be shot, :eek: how exactly does one distinguish whether a right wing evil regime, as in Hitler and the Gestapo, or a left wing, a la Stalin and the NGVD, is doing one in? THEY ARE THE SAME - two sides of the same coin, both socialist, both left-wing, and both BAD. :barf: No difference between "International Socialism" AKA Communism and "National Socialism" - except a handful of letters, and whether one reads, "Mien Kampf", "A communist manifesto", or a little red book. :neener:

[Rebar]

I still appear to be correct, except perhaps for the point on which specific religion BSA favors.
Is atheisim a religion? I wouldn't think so. However, since BSA accepts Jews, Muslems, and Buddists, among others, they are clearly NOT a Christian organization.

[Gordon Fink]

Rich (or Tinker), can you explain the differences between fascism, socialism, and communism before you disparage my education?

~G. Fink

You should have also noticed my quotation marks around the word leftist. I actually reject the term, as it has little real utility in sociopolitical discourse.

[dmallind]

Yes we all know totalitarian regimes ALWAYS use accurate labels for their ideology. The former East Germany must have been democratic since that's what it called itself - regardless of the fact that it never held a free election. So the Nazis must have been Socialist regardless of the fact that they behaved as fascists. Although I do concede in purely practical application there is often precious little difference except the targets for slaughter.

And surely the idea that atheists in BSA is equivalent to women in NAMBLA is in jest? Did you miss the basis I laid out for the suit against the BSA as one of government preference? If NAMBLA received public funds and accommodation you might have a point in that it would need to allow women to join. If the BSA really WERE a purely private, self sustaining organization then I would agree that the ACLU's case was without merit. We have a local theater company that uses only black actors. They cannot be sued and should not be sued for this - they are a private organization. However if they performed in school auditoriums free of facility rental charges then they could and should, especially if an all white theater company were denied this same accommodation.

I would think gun rights advocates more than anyone would recognize the difference between the rights of the private individual or organization and the rights of the government.

[Sean Smith]

I think the fundamental problem, from the ACLU's point of view, is that the BSA produces a disproportionately high number of future Republicans, as do boys who grow up not molested by NAMBLA members. In that context, their legal positions make perfect sense.

[Rebar]

And surely the idea that atheists in BSA is equivalent to women in NAMBLA is in jest?
No.

The whole "government preference" nonsense is a strawman argument. Using a school once a week after hours for a meeting of local boys, is a very minor accommodation. Other groups also have access the same way, so it's hardly a preference. Not a penny of funding comes from the government to the BSA. The BSA have been doing this for, what, 90 years?

But since they refuse to allow openly gay scoutmasters, now the ACLU are trying to destroy the scouts. Hmmm... there aren't more pressing concerns then to make sure those awful, terrible boy scouts don't have a place to meet?

The real reason is pretty much what Sean Smith said, the ACLU thinks the scouts are a "right wing" group, therefore it must be destroyed.

To say the ACLU is a non-partisan watchdog group flys in the face of the facts. They selectivly pick and choose their causes to further an obvious left-wing agenda. Their jihad against BSA is proof positive.

[Gordon Fink]

… since they refuse to allow openly gay scoutmasters …

Because BSA thinks they are more likely to molest the children, if I recall correctly. Sounds like some kind of slander to me.

~G. Fink

[richyoung]

"Rich (or Tinker), can you explain the differences between fascism, socialism, and communism before you disparage my education?"


Yes I can - and as a PRACTICAL matter, there is NONE. For Joe Sixpack, living under ANY of them is exactly the same, despite their protestations to the contrary. If you are one of the elite, then there are some minor differences, (depending on "which" elite you are :confused: a member of). For example, if you are part of the Krupp family, then you really want fascism, because you get to keep owning the steel works, ( although you have little say in what you build, expansion, etc.) As for Communism, even they admit that they are socialist until the "New Man" that is "ready for true communism" shows up, (AS IF!). Can YOU explain where on YOUR political spectrum, where "National Socialism" is "Right", "Socialism" is the middle, and "International Socialism/Communism" is "Left", (that is to say, THE WHOLE SPECTRUM IS SOCIALIST?!?!?!) you would put a monarchy? A kleptocracy? An anarchy? A constitutionally limited republic? A fuedal system? A tribal confederation?

[Rebar]

Because BSA thinks they are more likely to molest the children, if I recall correctly.
Well, yes.

I'll point out that the US military, wholly funded by taxpayers and fully supported by the government, has the same exact policy.

[richyoung]

"Because BSA thinks they are more likely to molest the children, if I recall correctly. Sounds like some kind of slander to me."

More like PARENTS don't want their young boys alone in the woods with a DEVIANT. Or are you volunteering YOUR children to participate in the NAMBLA Camp-Out Overnight?

[Gordon Fink]

I’ll point out that the US military, wholly funded by taxpayers and fully supported by the government, has the same exact policy.

What happened to “don’t ask; don’t tell”? :D

~G. Fink

[romulus]

Because BSA thinks they are more likely to molest the children, if I recall correctly. Sounds like some kind of slander to me.
Sounds eminently reasonable to me, based on both experience and statistical evidence

[Standing Wolf]

Yes I can - and as a PRACTICAL matter, there is NONE.

Well said, richyoung!

[dmallind]

Your declaring a strawman argument does not make it so.

Please give me a full list of all atheist groups which your local school board allows to use their facilities gratis. Satanist groups? Islamist groups? Jehovah's Witnesses? Klan?

When public facilities are used to support a private group, the private group is assuming the mantle of a government-authorized entity and is no longer entirely private. When the BSA uses no school property, enjoys no access advantage to schoolchildren over other private exclusionary groups espousing specific religious beliefs, and is not promoted on school property then you have a point. Until that dim distant possibility arises, or until EXACTLY the same accommodations are offered to American Atheists or CAIR, then there is a preference.

[Sir Aardvark]

This is a late post, so I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet:

Q. How does the ACLU count to ten?.

A. 1,_,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.


Apparently, my Constitutionally protected Right to Bear Arms means nothing to the ACLU, unless of course, I exercise that right while sodomizing little boys.........

[Glock Glockler]

dmallind,

When the BSA uses no school property, enjoys no access advantage to schoolchildren over other private exclusionary groups espousing specific religious beliefs, and is not promoted on school property then you have a point. Until that dim distant possibility arises, or until EXACTLY the same accommodations are offered to American Atheists or CAIR, then there is a preference

Talk about strawman arguements, this one isnt anything but straw.

I have seen Star Trek groups meet in schools after hours should they not be allowed to use public facilities unless it can be proven that they can prove that all other groups got EXACTLY the same accomodations? What about Alcoholics Anonomous, or Remaining Men together, or the bi-monthly sickle cell group? What about Magic: the gathering?

You are basically stating that the schools have to prove that they're not discriminating against non-boy scout groups, sorry but you can't prove a negative. Unless you can prove that the school is discriminating against other groups than you have no legal arguement.

[igor]

IIRC, Baden-Powell himself was gay. And he started the Boy Scouts as exclusively that, Boy Scouts.

Just to insert an annoying, confusing remark. :evil:

[ravinraven]

What would be worse. Sending your son into the woods for an overnight with a gay scout master or sending your daughter into the woods overnight with a straight male scout master?

rr

[Tinker]

Gordon Fink,

My understanding of Fascism is: Strong central control of national production methods while retaining private ownership. Examples would be Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. You could also say our own country was fascist during WW2 for war production. If you factor in the EPA I think that label still applies. :)

Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are really what you'd call "collectivism". The idea being that all work collectively for the benefit of the whole. Material ownership can be collective or individual. Depends on who's at the wheel. It is an eco-political system that is even older than Marx/Engels. Probably goes way back to basic, small tribal or family units. A single family is basically a collective unit. In these limited confines it works quite well to ensure the survival of small groups. On a large scale it has shown to be largest human mechanism for genocide. Mao, Stalin and Hitler lived as gods in their lands. Historians make a big deal of Alexander or a Caesar. Mao probably squelched more human life than the both of them together if you factor in population densities of the modern world. Too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few. Positions of power draw exactly the kind you don't need at the reigns. Collectivism can be as harsh as Stalin's gulags or as benign as modern Sweden. "Collectism + big populace + resources = disaster" the way I see it.

Our own country has shades of Marxism and Fascism. The only thing to keep those at bay is that we have (mostly adhered to) rules in the Bill of Rights.

[Gordon Fink]

Tinker, thank you for a good answer. A lot of people use the words communism and socialism as epithets without understanding what they actually mean. There are further distinctions between socialism, Marxism, and communism, but they aren’t germane to this thread. Suffice it to say that communism would be a perfectly good system, if it weren’t unworkable, compared to socialism, which is workable but necessarily coercive.

In the U.S., “leftism” usually refers to public ownership (collectivism) over private ownership (capitalism). Since fascist systems (like Nazi Germany) allow private ownership, they would be considered “rightist” under this definition. However, these terms mean different things to different people, which is why I don’t like to use them. Nevertheless, it irritates me when “rightists” describe everything they don’t like as “leftist.”

~G. Fink

[DigitalWarrior]

Most boys who are molested are victims of "straight" men (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html).

But other than that, I think that we have beaten the ACLU/BSA thing to death. I don't hink we need to discuss it. Are there any other new reasons?

So far we have:
Affirmative Action
They do not support the 2nd Amendment
Percieved anti-religous stance
Support of unsavory characters

[Tinker]

"....fascist systems (like Nazi Germany) allow private ownership, they would be considered “rightist” under this definition."

From my perspective that is still a modern leftist interpretation. :)

"Rightist, Leftist" are all terms made up by the political left. Marxists call themselves "Progressives" and conservatives label Marxists "liberals". From what I've read the label "Capitalist" was created by Marx. Conservatives/libertarians adopting this name is akin to the Dakota taking the name "Souix".

My biggest beef with "the Left" is that they seldom ever openly admit what they actually are. They use labels to make themselves more palatable for the unknowning or to malign an enemy. Proof in this pudding is in a book by a reformed Communist named David Horowitz. The book is called "Radical Son". He also goes off on the ACLU.

[Gordon Fink]

Just because Marx was wrong about the best solutions for economic problems, that doesn’t mean he didn’t describe economic systems accurately. However, this is off topic.

I’m quite sure the membership of the ACLU includes socialists and other authoritarians, as well as communists and other libertarians. Like most everyone else, many are probably ideologically inconsistent and fail to see how that fact hinders their progress.

~G. Fink

[LawDog]

So far we have:
Affirmative Action
They do not support the 2nd Amendment
Percieved anti-religous stance
Support of unsavory characters

They use tax money to fund their lawsuits.

They certify that they do not fund or employ suspected terrorists on the governments watch list in order to qualify for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in Federal employee pay-roll deduction programs, then refuse to check the watch lists. (http://www.urielw.com/refs/040731.htm)

They are fighting to prevent the enforcement of illegal immigration laws.

LawDog

[Gordon Fink]

They are fighting to prevent the enforcement of illegal immigration laws.

As they should, though I personally advocate reform over non-enforcement. In other words, let’s eliminate the illegal, unconstitutional portions of immigration law, while still defending our borders from penetration by terrorists and other criminals.

~G. Fink

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me point out, I don't "hate" the ACLU. I despise them. Why?

Because civil liberties DO need to be defended, and the ACLU has chosen to be so much less than it could have been. They've chosen to remain a lefty dominated organization, much smaller and weaker than they'd have been if they were open to civil libertarians from across the political spectrum.

Look at the comparative size of the ACLU and the NRA, and you can see just how much the ACLU gave up in the way of membership, by deciding to be hostile to the 2nd amendment. Their attack on the 2nd amendment isn't just an attack on ONE civil liberty, it horribly weakens their ability to defend all others! But, still, they persist in it. If they really cared about civil liberties above all else, they'd swallow their bile, and be honest about the 2nd amendment. As it is, it's clear they've got "higher" priorities. Like maybe not having to associate with people like us.

[Gordon Fink]

That’s what I mean by ideological inconsistency.

~G. Fink

[LawDog]

They are fighting to prevent the enforcement of illegal immigration laws.



As they should, though I personally advocate reform over non-enforcement. In other words, let’s eliminate the illegal, unconstitutional portions of immigration law, while still defending our borders from penetration by terrorists and other criminals.

~G. Fink

I'm sorry, that was poorly worded of me. Let me re-phrase that:

They are fighting to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws against people who are here illegally.

Does that clear up your misunderstanding?

LawDog

[jfh]

and without getting a real good number, it looks like they had about 330,000 members in 2003.

How much of an effort is it to get 400,000 gunnies to join? What would it take to do a takeover?

It has to be a long-term effort, I realize--but it might be fun to do.

[Rebar]

How much of an effort is it to get 400,000 gunnies to join? What would it take to do a takeover?
I think you have to be a lawyer to do anything in the ACLU, is that a correct assumption?

[ctdonath]

(Skipping over 6 pages of responses, and just answering the original question...)

Because they go to extreme lengths to defend the Bill Of Rights for individuals, except the 2nd - where they make a non-sequitor decision that "the people" suddenly is a vague reference to the state and the Founding Fathers really didn't mean anything by RKBA.

Kinda hard to like a group that goes WAY out of their way to disinfranchise a group I'm a part of.