Join the ACLU.


PDA






devilc
October 22, 2007, 12:45 AM
I saw this in someone's signature block, which prompted comment from another member. . .
Quote:
'Proud member of the NRA and ACLU. Two organizations every American should be a member of.'
Retort:
"So, can you get the ACLU to start acknowledging the 2nd Amendment?"

YES!
EXACTLY!
What if the entire membership of the NRA and GOA suddenly joined the ACLU and began voting and demanding that the ACLU work to preserve THE ENTIRE Bill of Rights?
Do it. Sign up today and start writing letters.

If you enjoyed reading about "Join the ACLU." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jorg Nysgerrig
October 22, 2007, 01:01 AM
I'm afraid I'm missing the activism angle of this. While I appreciate the sentiment, what is the specific plan of attack to get the ACLU see the Second Amendment as an individual right rather than a collective right? Just giving them dues and saying, "I'm now a member, please change your position" doesn't seem like an effective option.

Have you considered any ways we might be able to shift their view that has a higher chance of success?

mrreynolds
October 22, 2007, 01:19 AM
umm Ok

BobMcG
October 22, 2007, 01:41 AM
Yeah, OK, I'll get right on that. Just as soon as you know what freezes over.

Lanyard
October 22, 2007, 11:30 AM
I think devilc is right. The ACLU has about 500,000 members while the NRA has 3 million. Everyone knows the ACLU has significant clout among a certain crowd, what better way to expand our political & legal reach than to co-op another organization and help steer the wandering ship. If you think that 250,000 dedicated, dues paying members wouldn't shake up their stance on the 2nd Amendment you are wrong.

Citroen
October 22, 2007, 11:52 AM
Sorry Guys, but I have an aversion to giving my money to organizations with which I disagree. There are better legal groups to join including some that actively promote the 2nd Amendment.

In my view, joining the ACLU with the idea of "changing it" would be a lot like joining the atheists and hoping to convert the entire organization. I would rather be with friends than with the enemy and hoping to love them into liking me.

I do, however, send the ACLU a Christmas Card every year!

John
Charlotte, NC

TexasRifleman
October 22, 2007, 11:59 AM
By the way there are state versions of ACLU as well.

Here in Texas the State ACLU has been active in pro gun causes and done work in conjunction with the Texas State Rifle Association.

Something to consider anyway. I am a contributor to both groups.

jimmyraythomason
October 22, 2007, 12:04 PM
Join the Anti Civil Liberties Union? Not even if you paid me!

AirForceShooter
October 22, 2007, 12:05 PM
And after the ACLU we can all join the Brady Bunch.
Right!!

AFS

ilbob
October 22, 2007, 12:05 PM
I think some of the state ACLU affiliates are more in touch with reality then the national ACLU.

The national ACLU only cares about unrestricted abortion and other rights that don't actually exist for the most part.

fletcher
October 22, 2007, 12:06 PM
While this does make sense from an RKBA point of view, the ACLU will not be getting a dime from me as long as they continue to attack the BSA.

mljdeckard
October 22, 2007, 01:55 PM
If the ACLU were actually sincere in its intent, to protect ALL civil liberties, I might consider it.

As it exists now, apparently you can only work for the ACLU if you are missing your number two finger.

Sniper X
October 22, 2007, 01:59 PM
That sounds logical, but do you think the ACLU is logical in ANY way in theit thinking? I doubt if even 90% pf their members wanted them to stand up for the 2a they wouldn't do it....to liberallly biased in the structure.

buzz_knox
October 22, 2007, 01:59 PM
Didn't the ACLU Board stamp down on dissent not too long ago? It would seem that while local ACLU organizations might be subject to infilitatration, the national org. would insure that no deviation from the party line would be allowed.

GTSteve03
October 22, 2007, 02:26 PM
Please. Why would I want to join an organization trying to protect 9 out of 10 of my Constitutionally-protected rights?

I have my 2nd Amendment rights and thats all I need! :rolleyes:

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 22, 2007, 03:21 PM
I think the idea that the ACLU is even protecting the other Rights is a joke. The ACLU routinely comes down against freedom of religion and freedom of speech when it happens to be Christian religion or conservative speech. Sorry, the only way I would join the ACLU is if all of the other current members in the whole organization were kicked out somehow. Just like the MSM, and most colleges; the ACLU is just another leftist organization promoting leftist, anti-Christian, anti-conservative "values" and trying to pass it off as "enlightenment". I'll pass on being part of that.

Mr. Designer
October 22, 2007, 03:54 PM
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." - Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

Go ahead and join if you want. Not me.

frankcostanza
October 22, 2007, 04:05 PM
naaht gonna do it, wouldnt be prudent...

GTSteve03
October 22, 2007, 04:10 PM
Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU
Who's been dead for 25 years and hasn't lead the ACLU since 1950.

mrreynolds
October 22, 2007, 04:16 PM
Everytime they ask you to join go to my site instead & get a NRA membership for someone you know for $10 or $25 either gets a year of membership

Mr. Designer
October 22, 2007, 04:18 PM
Who's been dead for 25 years and hasn't lead the ACLU since 1950.

Roger Baldwin may be dead but unfortunately his ideology is not.

Megistopoda
October 22, 2007, 04:22 PM
I am a strong supporter of civil liberties....and I think that we all should be.

Megistopoda
October 22, 2007, 04:24 PM
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." - Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

OK, to whomever posted this quote...can we have a source please?

amper
October 22, 2007, 04:34 PM
The real question is, what power does the member ship of the ACLU have to effect policy decisions within the organization? What power does the membership weild over the ACLU Foundation?

A brief search of the ACLU-NJ web site reveals only this:

"A statewide Board of Trustees sets policy, raises funds, and provides legal and fiduciary oversight."

With no indication of exactly who comprises the board.

I would join the ACLU and donate money, as I agree with the ACLU on every issue where I can find a mission statement, except for that one glaring omission--the Second Amendment. If I had any hope that a mass influx of pro-gun rights members might be able to force a change in the ACLU, I would whole-heartedly advocate it, but I see no evidence that this is necessarily the case.

I did take away one thing from the ACLU-NJ site, though. A great quote from Mr. Baldwin:

"No fight for liberty ever stays won."

I like that quote so much, I'm adding it to my .sig...

6_gunner
October 22, 2007, 04:35 PM
It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it will work.

I came across a similar, but opposite idea once (I think it was on a facebook group). They were advocating that antis should join the NRA until they were the majority and then hold a vote to revoke the right to bear arms. Of course, their reasoning was faulty, since a vote of NRA members can't change the Constitution!

Anyway, this sounds a little too similar. The idea is at least solid, but I for one wouldn't contribute to an anti-gun organization with the hope that I can convert it to a pro-gun organization. I think most pro-gun people would feel the same way.

Mr. Designer
October 22, 2007, 04:43 PM
EXPANDED QUOTE:
"My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the new deal because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system of dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth." - Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

Source: Robert C. Cottrell, Roger Nash Baldwin and the American Civil Union, page 228-29 (2000)

ilbob
October 22, 2007, 04:44 PM
With no indication of exactly who comprises the board.
My understanding is that there is no election of officers or trustees in the aclu. existing trustees select new trustees and officers.

Very few advocacy groups actually have elections to determine their leaders.

amper
October 22, 2007, 05:00 PM
That "Expanded Quote" came from 1935. Baldwin repudiated his stance on Communism later in life when he came to understand the Soviet Union much better. You might try reading his book, "A New Slavery: The Communist Betrayal of Human Rights", from 1953

mgregg85
October 22, 2007, 08:35 PM
I like the infiltration idea a lot, I just wonder about its feasibility. Alternatively we could take a page from the Brady Bunch's book and make our own spin off of the ACLU, could call it the American Civil Liberties Association. Then we could discredit the ACLU for not supporting all the civil liberties.

Vicious-Peanut
October 22, 2007, 08:55 PM
Ahahaha, no way in hell.

bl4ckd0g
October 22, 2007, 09:03 PM
I will not support an organization like the ACLU who defends some very questionable and legally dubious groups. I'd rather see my charitable contributions and time go into a more focused goal.

351 WINCHESTER
October 22, 2007, 09:10 PM
ACLU?? Too liberal for me.

lamazza
October 22, 2007, 09:31 PM
I do, however, send the ACLU a Christmas Card every year!


lol me too!

obxned
October 22, 2007, 09:41 PM
Yeah, the best way to promote abstinence is to became a hooker.

bensdad
October 22, 2007, 09:42 PM
Yeah, um, I was gonna join the ACLU. Then I noticed that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. I also noticed that Christianity is not constitutionally banned.

The ACLU has nothing to offer me.

THey have never (seldom?) tried to assist conservatives in any attempt to exercise their rights. They offer assistance to:
1) the KKK
2) NAMBLA
3) Muslims
4) gay community
5) evolutionists wanting to ban a Christian interpretation

Only one of those has anything to do with civil liberties articulated in the COTUS.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 22, 2007, 09:57 PM
bensdad has it figured out.

buzz_knox
October 22, 2007, 10:07 PM
THey have never (seldom?) tried to assist conservatives in any attempt to exercise their rights. They offer assistance to:

They supported those groups because (officially) the groups that are the most hated are often the first abused, and that abuse has a habit of bleeding over to abuse of those who are next in line of hatred, then the next, then the next. The fact that doing so gets publicity for the ACLU and funds doesn't hurt.

However, that doesn't explain their defense of the "learn the Koran or explain yourself" policy at UNC. It also doesn't explain their silence in other cases of constitutional violations when speaking up is against the ACLU's core beliefs. For example, we saw blatant violations of the Fifth Amendment in New Orleans when property was being illegally confiscated. However, property rights aren't particularly high on the ACLU's list and we all know their stated position on the Second Amendment. So, they never said a word.

The ACLU exists to serve the ACLU. If supporting certain civil rights will achieve that goal, the ACLU will be there, but the primary constituents of the ACLU will not allow it to become pro-gun rights.

QuickRick
October 23, 2007, 02:16 AM
Not a chance. First of all I disagree passionately with many of their positions outside the 2nd Amendment. Secondly, even if we could convert their thinking to pro RKBA via the infiltration technique, how much support ($$$$) and years would it take? Even if we could be successful in say 20 years, then for 19 years we would be contributing our heart, soul, and dollars into an organization that would be slitting our throats and zealously attacking the freedom that we so cherish...No way, no how.....

cwmcgu2
October 23, 2007, 04:29 AM
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."
-Norman Thomas, co-founder of the ACLU and six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. (Quote from 1948 interview during presidential campaign)

Mr. Designer
October 23, 2007, 09:58 AM
I'll consider joining when the ACLU comes out and defends Rush Limbaugh's freedom of speech against the blatant attempt to silence him by the United States Senate.

ronwill
October 23, 2007, 10:11 AM
The ACLU is rooted in communism (check the history) and does not support the 2A. I will never join such an organization.

denfoote
October 23, 2007, 10:17 AM
Me Joining the ACLU would be like Tailgunner Joe joining the Communist Party!!

CoRoMo
October 23, 2007, 10:43 AM
If I ever join the ACLU, shoot me.

RoadkingLarry
October 23, 2007, 11:03 AM
I'd sooner nuke 'em from high orbit. I spent too big a chunk of my life fighting communism to give them money to join the american communist liberation union.

mightyike
October 23, 2007, 11:06 AM
They would laugh at you. All they want are dues and money. In theory, the ACLU sounds nice; in reality, lawyers making a living as parasites and ground carrion feeders (eating the dying too).

I'm a Democrat. I want to vote to prevent Hillary and Bill from returning to the White House....same theory, no dues. I still wonder who killed Foster. And why.

It's a long story but I'm on your page. No one tells me who to vote for- thought we could impact primaries.

cwmcgu2
October 23, 2007, 11:16 AM
Joining the ACLU isn't the right thing to do for us 2nd Amendment activists. Sure they are a powerful force for the protection of free speech and other important issues. But that does not justify supporting them in light of their underlying subversive message of socialism. It would be like supporting Hitler, he had many "good" plans for Germany but they merely masked his underlying subversive message of facism and bigotry.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 23, 2007, 11:34 AM
Sure they are a powerful force for the protection of free speech and other important issues.

No they aren't. They protect free speech for some. The ones that are speaking a liberal and leftist agenda. The ACLUs selective protection and defense of those who's rights are being trampled is more corrosive than helping no one at all.

roo_ster
October 23, 2007, 11:39 AM
The ACLU defends free speech it agrees with, nowadays.

It has been a long time since Skokie.


A similar silence greeted the cancellation of a speech by Minuteman leader Jim Gilchrist at Columbia University. Gilchrist and a colleague were driven off the stage at Columbia last year by angry radicals. Gilchrist was reinvited a month ago, but when the speech was announced, campus Hispanics, who consider him racist for opposing the flood of illegals into the country, pressured the relevant student authorities to ban him. The campus chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union thought about protesting but decided not to. Again, I was able to find only one professor willing to say that silencing Gilchrist was a bad idea. I asked Gilchrist if there were more. He said he knows of no other instructor who spoke out. The campus joke is that Gilchrist should have come out in favor killing gays and nuking Israel. Then he would have been as welcome as Mahoud Amadinejad.

Kimber1911_06238
October 23, 2007, 11:39 AM
if the ACLU had a majority of 2A supporters, the anti's would abandon the organization and it would become nothing more than a mini-NRA

Dionysusigma
October 23, 2007, 12:27 PM
From http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html :

"Does the ACLU have Communist roots? Was co-founder Roger Baldwin a Communist?
No, Roger Baldwin was not a communist. Like many of his contemporaries, he observed and wrote about the social and political issues in the early years of the Soviet Union, but later he wrote, "The Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, a traumatic shock to me, ended any ambivalence I had about the Soviet Union, and all cooperation with Communists in united fronts."

Throughout the organizationís history and particularly during the McCarthy era, the ACLU, its members, staff and founders have been accused of being communists. The ACLU has no political affiliations and makes no test of individuals' ideological leanings a condition of membership or employment. Members and staff of the national ACLU and its affiliates may be Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Federalists, Libertarians, or members of any other political party or no party at all. What the ACLU asks of its staff and officials is that they consistently defend civil liberties and the Constitution."

ACLU's official stance on Firearm Issues: http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

If I ever join the ACLU it will be for something totally unrelated to firearms, though the possibility is not out of the question.

Blakenzy
October 23, 2007, 12:42 PM
Baldwin strikes me as more of an Anarchist than a Communist... taking into account his negative remarks towards governments

Maybe we should just pool our resources, get together and open our very own ACLU chapter...THR style...yeah :cool:

amper
October 23, 2007, 01:05 PM
ACLU's official stance on Firearm Issues: http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

The trouble with this, of course, is that the ACLU is *entirely* wrong on this subject. That page is so riddled with misinformation about the purpose of weapons in a free society it hard to know even where to begin with people who hold these misguided (advocacy of the collective right theory, reasonability of guerilla resistance, which is well proven in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq), ill-informed (the U.S. v. Miller decision doesn't say what they seem to think it does, and in any case, the case was remanded and not retried), and outdated (no mention of Parker v. D.C.) positions.

And, as I said before, payment of membership dues and/or donations to the Foundation create no obligation for the ACLU to spend those monies in ways that are requested by the donor, so giving free rein to these people is futile and counterproductive.

No one with any amount of brains in their head has even suggested that the RKBA should be entirely unlimited (personal possesion of WMD has no valid purpose for the regulation of the militia, for one thing, and no valid purpose for self-defense, for another), so on this matter ("reasonable" gun control), the ACLU *appears* to have a "reasonable" stance, and even explicitly claims a "neutral stance on gun control", but this idea is clearly contradicted when you examine the rest of their points.

If the ACLU ever changes their stance on Amendment II and finally recognizes the *entire* Constitution, then, and only then, will I consider membership and/or donation. But before that happens, they must conclusively demonstrate that they will fight tooth and nail for *all* civil liberties, instead of just the ones with which they feel comfortable.

They could start by supporting Parker, et al, in Parker, et al, v. District of Columbia...

fatelk
October 23, 2007, 01:14 PM
The ACLU has a completely different perspective on the Constitution, I think. They want it to be a "living document", changing with the times, to mean whatever they want it to mean. They do not care a whit as to original intent.

Their lawyers and leaders are also hard-core leftists, with an agenda. If you tend towards that perspective, maybe even most of you Libertarians, and want legal drugs, prostitution, abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc., go ahead and join. They may even convince you someday how confused you are about firearms.

Sure, they may occasionally do something good and worthwhile (I believe that the powers that be need to be occasionally reminded that you do have to carefully about stepping on peoples rights, even if the purpose is good, like national defence), but I don't think their actual goals have really changed since 1935.

This thread has degenerated into something that looks too much like the old L&P. I predict thread lock any minute...

buzz_knox
October 23, 2007, 01:23 PM
What the ACLU asks of its staff and officials is that they consistently defend civil liberties and the Constitution

And yet, they don't. Maybe the ACLU should fire its staff and officials.

amper
October 23, 2007, 01:26 PM
Why lock the thread? Other than the blanket characterizations of socialists, communists, non-Christians, leftists, and liberals, we're having an entirely reasonable discussion, aren't we? ;)

More seriously, I fail to see the connection between legal drugs (get your damn laws off my body), legal prostitution (get your damn laws off my body), legal abortion (get your damn laws off my body), gay marriage (get your damn laws off my body), and *illegal* firearms (oddly enough, the justification for legal weapons is also get your damn laws off my body, but in a different way).

BobMcG
October 23, 2007, 02:03 PM
It's called infiltration.

OK, with that thought in mind, why don't we get together and join an Islamic fundamentalist group and just change it too. :rolleyes:

ronwill
October 23, 2007, 02:03 PM
ACLU not founded in communism? Here's a start in research. There's a wealth out there showing that it was in fact founded in, and supported by, communism.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41751

Noxx
October 23, 2007, 04:15 PM
Wow Ron...

Not to slam, but if I want to make an objective point to an educated audience, the page you linked is *not* on my side lol.

ronwill
October 23, 2007, 06:23 PM
Wow Ron...

Not to slam, but if I want to make an objective point to an educated audience, the page you linked is *not* on my side lol.
__________________
Stay off my side, space hippy.

Dog-Fu!

Didn't like that link? How about these:

http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=268

http://deadrepublicanpresidents.blogspot.com/2005/01/aclu-and-communism.html

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092102.html

http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html

There are plenty more if needed. :evil:

mgregg85
October 23, 2007, 06:36 PM
THey have never (seldom?) tried to assist conservatives in any attempt to exercise their rights. They offer assistance to:
1) the KKK
2) NAMBLA
3) Muslims
4) gay community
5) evolutionists wanting to ban a Christian interpretation

So whats wrong with supporting Muslims? I'd agree with you that I dislike that they support the KKK and others but they stand for civil rights(at least some of them) for all. Thats the only thing that I respect about the ACLU, they are brave enough to stand up and fight for at least some of the bill of rights.

As far as the evolution debate, I agree with you that the creation side should be presented but also other religious theories should also be presented including Pastafarianism.

mgregg85
October 23, 2007, 06:37 PM
Baldwin strikes me as more of an Anarchist than a Communist... taking into account his negative remarks towards governments

I got the same feeling but I think he was more like a libertarian than an anarchist.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 23, 2007, 06:40 PM
legal abortion (get your damn laws off my body)

Since the thread is on the way towards lock already, I'll just point out that since a baby in the womb has separate DNA, separate brain waves, separate finger prints, and yes , even a separate body, it has NOTHING to do with "get you damn laws of my body"

lanternlad1
October 23, 2007, 06:53 PM
I support both the NRA and the ACLU, in full knowledge of what each group represents. The ACLU is weak in the 2nd amendment, and the NRA is weak on the rest of the amendments. The ACLU has done some good things in their time, recently such as shedding light on Bush's wiretapping program, and getting the courts to stop the FBI from issuing unconstitutional search warrants. There are a great many right wing conservatives here, but in no way does that mean all who support the 2nd are conservatives. One does not have to be such to support the Constitution.

The problem with rights is that they either work for everyone, or not at all.

fatelk
October 23, 2007, 09:36 PM
Why lock the thread? Other than the blanket characterizations of socialists, communists, non-Christians, leftists, and liberals, we're having an entirely reasonable discussion, aren't we?
I think it's great to have a civil, reasonable discussion, but the rules for the Activism forum are pretty clear. I surprised it isn't locked yet.

My comments about abortion, drugs, prostitution, etc. were to illustrate that you will not change my mind and I will obviously not change yours. And this is not the place to argue about it either.;)

Yes, I had to get my two cents in before the lock, but seriously this forum is for activism, not arguing whether the ACLU is good or bad. If your response is "I just joined, told them they need to support the second amendment" then that's fine.

If your response is like mine and just says "The ACLU sucks" then this isn't the place.:D

esq_stu
October 23, 2007, 09:43 PM
I'd rather recruit 3 million more NRA members.

amper
October 24, 2007, 12:24 AM
My comments about abortion, drugs, prostitution, etc. were to illustrate that you will not change my mind and I will obviously not change yours. And this is not the place to argue about it either.

Oh, I'm not arguing about it, I was just trying to illustrate a point that belief in the RKBA is not necessarily incompatible with the other stances. In fact, in my belief, I can't see how they can be separated. What I didn't get is why you would think that association with others who agree with me on every point except RKBA would have any effect on my stance on that point, given that my belief on all of these issues is essentially founded on the same premise.

If your response is like mine and just says "The ACLU sucks" then this isn't the place.

And, my responses in this thread were directed at the originator's post, and are meant to describe exactly why I think the original idea is a bad one. Namely, that the membership and donors of and to the ACLU have absolutely no say over the ACLU's policies. I don't think they *suck*, per se, but I am very deeply disappointed in them, and any posts I've made that don't directly answer the originator's questions illustrate the fact that I can't see joing the ACLU or donating to the Foundation based on my understanding of their inconsistent and dangerous views on Amendment II.

If I cannot control the money they get from me, and I have foreknowledge that they will use it against me, they won't get any money from me, regardless of how I feel about other issues. The RKBA is *that* important.

devilc
October 24, 2007, 01:05 AM
Realistically - you are not going to draw 3,000,000 more people to the NRA.
If you could get a group like the ACLU to make some minor course corrections on the 2nd Amendment, it would be a BIG deal.
I don't think many of you are very pragmatic nor realistic about how these fights must be fought and won.

amper
October 24, 2007, 02:43 AM
Great, but how exactly do you propose to steer the ACLU?

I think if Parker v. DC goes well, we may see some interesting things from the ACLU.

jimmyraythomason
October 24, 2007, 03:18 AM
The ACLU is loudly proclaiming "Congress shall make no law" while omitting "the free exercise thereof". MOST of the lawsuits that the ACLU bring against public displays of faith would be thrown out of court as frivolous if judges stuck to the letter of the law.

bogie
October 24, 2007, 04:23 AM
Some of y'all just don't get it.

If the ACLU suddenly had 3 million folks voting that they needed to pay attention to that pesky 2nd amendment, well... They'd look at how much money they'd lose if they all didn't renew next year...

It's the bottom line, campers. I think that if we could actually organize a bunch of gun people (next to impossible), we could actually cause some serious paradigm shifts.

But that ain't gonna happen, because folks would rather bitch than cooperate to coordinate...

Of course, I could be proven wrong. And I'd LIKE to be proven wrong.

40SW
October 24, 2007, 09:24 AM
Since this is a Firearms/RKBA forum, I would like to have a single example sited where the ACLU has supported RKBA/2nd ammendment. I have never heard or seen one.
Furthermore, The Constitution is NOT a living document to be INTERPRETED, it is a FOUNDATION to be UPHELD. The 2nd ammendment was never meant to be LIVING, nor INTERPRETED, It was meant to be UPHELD., period.

ronwill
October 24, 2007, 10:19 AM
Some of y'all just don't get it.

If the ACLU suddenly had 3 million folks voting that they needed to pay attention to that pesky 2nd amendment, well... They'd look at how much money they'd lose if they all didn't renew next year...

It's the bottom line, campers. I think that if we could actually organize a bunch of gun people (next to impossible), we could actually cause some serious paradigm shifts.

But that ain't gonna happen, because folks would rather bitch than cooperate to coordinate...

Of course, I could be proven wrong. And I'd LIKE to be proven wrong.
__________________
Take Back The Media,
Take back the VOTE!
www.creativeaccuracy.com

I don't believe that's always the case. Sometimes an organization becomes so powerful that it doesn't always listen to the "uneducated" members. If the governing board has an agenda it will be priority one, even if the membership doesn't agree. Even the NRA has shown some small instances of this.

jimmyraythomason
October 24, 2007, 09:26 PM
Amen! 40SW Amen! You have nailed it!

Citroen
October 24, 2007, 09:41 PM
Waste of time and money to try to change the ACLU - you might have better luck changing the UN but I would rather just send my money to an organization that actually supports all 10 of the Bill of Rights.

And I think I "get it" pretty darn well!

John
Charlotte, NC

Lanyard
October 25, 2007, 12:14 AM
BobMcG,
I'm sure you aren't comparing the ACLU to an Islamic fundamentalist group, but in either case, infiltration works. Infiltration works for Mexican drug cartels & Mexican police. Infiltration worked for despotic governments in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and infiltration worked for Hitler and the German's Workers Party (DAP) which he then turned into the Nazi's (NSDAP). The last case shows that a small dedicated group can take the reins of an organization and change it's course. To say otherwise is to forget your history.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13689/mexicos_drug_war.html#5
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/opinion/26sun2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/nca_vol4/1708-ps.htm

MASTEROFMALICE
October 25, 2007, 12:44 AM
Everyone has their price and there is absoluely no reason why the ACLU couldn't be bought and sold just like any other special interest group.

Someone mentioned they had 500,00 members? Not everyone votes. A voting majority could be only 100,000 members. Place in only 150,000 NRA-type voters and you now have the needed votes to replace the upper echelon with people who see the tings the way we do.

What would ultimately happen is the original scumbags who are ACLU members now would freak out and bail and the ACLU would simply become another Second Amendment group.

The members who bailed would simply reform into a group under a new name but functionally like their old ACLU. Then all of us would have to shift with them. I figure it would keep them disoriented by having to bail and reform every couple of years, enough so that they'd never be able to get anything meaningful done.

By having so many more members the NRA could, in fact, take over the ACLU and render it useless.

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 25, 2007, 12:30 PM
By having so many more members the NRA could, in fact, take over the ACLU and render it useless.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that the original poster's point, as well as those who support the infiltration idea, is to get the ACLU on board supporting the 2A as an individual right, not to shut down their work on other civil rights. I'm not quite sure why you think taking down the ACLU would be, or even should be, on the NRA's agenda. They seem to be occupied with other things, like the 2A. I think I'd much rather have the NRA and other gun rights groups focused on gun rights instead of playing games trying to run members out of the ACLU.

tmajors
October 25, 2007, 05:34 PM
ACLU sees Freedom of Speech as absolute and any consequences to things you say as denial of Freedom of Speech. ACLU sees Freedom OF Religion as Freedom FROM Religion. ACLU sees the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a collective government right, not as an individual right. ACLU sees the right of privacy as a federal personal right and not as a right defined as unenumerated therefor a right reserved to the States to decide. ACLU sees Freedom of Expression buried in the Freedom of Speech. ACLU says loony nutjobs have more right to speak then conservative talk show hosts. ACLU says Christmas is not allowed on the public square, yet we have to spend money to make foot baths in public restrooms. ACLU says that describing a suspect is fine, but not if it includes his skin color (that is racist) even if the skin color is kind of an important factor in describing a suspect. I could go on and on.

That wall of words is why I will NEVER join or support the ACLU.

www.stoptheaclu.com

Citroen
October 25, 2007, 09:18 PM
Well said, tmajors. As far as I am concerned, support for the 2nd Amendment as clearly intended by the Framers of the Constitution, is a litmus test for my membership in ANY organization.

I dropped my membership in the AARP over their anti self defense stance and will drop my membership in any other organization that fails to recognize that devine right.

Want to fight for civil rights? Join the ACRU - they support all 10.

John
Charlotte, NC

Autolycus
October 26, 2007, 01:09 AM
ACLU Defending Conservatives. (http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLJ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=ACLU+Defends+conservatives&spell=1)

The ACLU does a lot of good work. Many here disagree with them simply because they defend groups that are not popular. One poster was angry that they defend Muslims. That is shameful.

I myself will join the ACLU before I join the NRA as the ACLU defends the majority of rights. I seem to remember them helping get a kids picture in the yearbook after it was denied due to it having his trap gun in it.

But hey... any chance we get to make fun of gays, muslims, minorities, leftists, communists, and socialists is a good time to do it.

Autolycus
October 26, 2007, 01:19 AM
Muslim Footbath and why one ACLU member says that it is constitutional. (http://www.here-now.org/shows/2007/10/20071008_13.asp)

jimmyraythomason
October 26, 2007, 01:59 AM
The ACLU defends NO rights. The ACLU only exists to stifle religious (primarily christian)liberty. They have used arguements for decades that do not exist within the United States Constitution. They use intimidation and threats of lawsuits to cower municipalities into abandoning traditional acknowledgements of religious holidays. Most counties/municpalities do not have the means or will to stand up against threatened litigation and simply back away. If judges held the ACLU to a strict reading of the Constitution and not some obscure interpretation,the ACLU would wither and die. We need tort reform and loser pays when dealing with lawsuits brought by groups like the ACLU ,take it to trial,no settleing. The idea that the ACLU defends civil liberties is laughable,they are the biggest threat to it(other than Congress,that is).

hobgob
October 26, 2007, 04:22 AM
Quite honestly i am glad that the aclu is around, and i am also glad that the NRA is around. now if only america and its leaders would stick to our constitution and recognize our bill of rights then this argument wouldnt be taking place. the point is that we need the aclu and the aclu will need the nra because a country is only as strong as its citizens. so if we want a strong citizenry we need an informed and armed citizenry. at least the smart people should be armed anyway!

Justin
October 26, 2007, 05:15 AM
This has really gone beyond realistic expectations of what the activism forum is about.

If you enjoyed reading about "Join the ACLU." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!