The aclu is coming!


PDA






redneckdan
September 8, 2008, 05:33 PM
One of the student organizations on campus is hosting an even on sept 17th whereby the michigan aclu is coming to talk about how the .gov is encroaching on our civil liberties. Being the maverick college student that I am, I want to spank them a mite during question and answer time after the presentation. So far my angle is: The ACLU's current stance is that the 2nd amendment is a collective right even though 'the right of the people..shall not be infringed' clearly applies to individuals just as the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments mention 'people ' in a way applicible to individuals...not just society as a whole. Anyone else have anymore advice? I addressing this issue at said meeting is probably going to be like arguing with a jackass (the animal kind) but I might as well give it a shot and try out all those rhetorical strategies I'm learning in my gen ed humanities classes.

If you enjoyed reading about "The aclu is coming!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Picard
September 8, 2008, 05:37 PM
You should mention that now the Supreme Court has clearly and explicitly stated that it is an individual right, why is the ACLU disagreeing?
That could be your punch line.

stampsm
September 8, 2008, 05:41 PM
ACLU, protecting the rights of the few by infringing on the rights of the many since 1920.

RM
September 8, 2008, 05:41 PM
Yes, and the ACLU in one state (I forgot which one) has come out in support of the Supreme Court Decision.

VegasOPM
September 8, 2008, 05:47 PM
The question that I keep asking them is "How do you decide which Civili Liberties are important?" and let them answer like they always do "We believe that ALL civili liberties are important..." That is when you start asking about the individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are guaranteed exclusively by the 2nd Amendment.

Eventually they will stop looking in your part of the room...:p

bcp
September 8, 2008, 05:49 PM
Second Amendment

ACLU? NOT A CLU.

ErikS
September 8, 2008, 06:01 PM
Read up on the Heller decision.

ACLU is bound to come back and tell you that Heller was wrong, and that the SC made a mistake that went against ever court decision for as long as can be remembered.

That's when you counter with that every SC decision ever has said it's an individual right, and every decision that says it's a collective right has been lower court decision, and all of them are based on a total misinterpretation of the 1938 Miller decision.
Before 1938, it was totally clear in all legal texts that it was an individual right, and the last decision the SC had on the matter was Miller in 1938. Miller isn't much of foundation to claim otherwise, but that's all the antigunners have, except for lower court decisions and polititicians making laws that have been unconstitutional but never been challenged in the SC.

retgarr
September 8, 2008, 06:06 PM
Campus activism isn't just for liberals anymore.

LB7_Driver
September 8, 2008, 06:14 PM
There is no such thing as a collective right.

Such a right would be held & exercised by the government, and governments have no rights. Government has only power and authority, as allowed by the people who delegate that power & authority.

This concept and associated verbiage is repeated throughout the Constitution.

TexasRifleman
September 8, 2008, 06:32 PM
Yes, and the ACLU in one state (I forgot which one) has come out in support of the Supreme Court Decision.

The Texas ACLU has been pro gun for a long time now, even getting involved in some lawsuits down in Houston around concealed carry.

But, from what I know of it, they are not really connected to the national organization by anything other than name.

average_shooter
September 8, 2008, 08:08 PM
ACLU is bound to come back and tell you that Heller was wrong, and that the SC made a mistake that went against ever court decision for as long as can be remembered.

Yeah, pretty much:

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

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

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Emphasis added. Link to page here:
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

Grump
September 8, 2008, 08:11 PM
I recommend playing a bit of hide-the-ball by starting with the "which rights" question above, asking about the propriety of .gov keeping a database of all the books you check out of the library, and then asking if the ACLU would oppose laws putting our purchases at hardware stores and camping outfitters in a central database.

THEN ask about the gun stuff.

But start by making it clear that you have a short series of questions. Resist the temptation to make the question a statement of policy more than a short question.

Then hoist 'em on their own petard. Politely.

ErikS
September 8, 2008, 08:21 PM
Exactly, they use the Miller decision as the foundation.

That's why you need to be prepared for it, and read up on Heller. The Heller decision discusses the Miller decision, and picks it to pieces. Read up on it, so you can take them to task on Miller too.
And then ask them what other decision they have except Miller, which is a really bad decision to use. They dont have any, because that's the only SC decision that's even come close to their view.

My bet is that if you ask them about it, they wont even know what Miller was about.

So, here's a short synopsis of Miller:
The case was the government filing a brief *unopposed*, claiming that “weapons which are commonly used by criminals,” such as sawed-off shotguns, are not protected. The court only ruled on the governments view, it had no opposing side making its case.

From the Heller opinion:
As for the text of the Court’s opinion itself, that discusses none of the history of the Second Amendment. It assumes from the prologue that the Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307 U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute), and then reviews some historical materials dealing with the nature of the militia, and in particular with the nature of the arms their members were expected to possess, id., at 178–182. Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case.

So maybe it would be an idea to ask the ACLU how they can claim the Miller decision talks about a collective right, because it doesn't mention it at all. It only talks about what kind of weapons might be allowed.

clarence222
September 8, 2008, 09:25 PM
If I remeber correctly the Nevada ACLu branch came in favor of the Second Ammendment

GigaBuist
September 8, 2008, 09:42 PM
If I remeber correctly the Nevada ACLu branch came in favor of the Second Ammendment

Yep.

If I were you I'd just ask them, politely, if the Michigan chapter, like the Nevada chapter, takes any issue with the national organization's stance on the 2nd amendment only insuring a collective right.

If you get an answer from them I'd love to hear it!

Loomis
September 8, 2008, 09:45 PM
This is something very important to me and it makes a big difference in how one views government, the constitution, and rights of the people...


We are born with our rights. our rights pre-existed The US government, the US constitution, and even pre-existed all forms of government and written language. The fact that we are human beings is where our rights came from. This is what the phrase "endowed by our creator" means. You don't have to believe in god to make sense of that phrase. You only have to recognize that a human being's rights are too big for a government or a human being to authorize or grant to another human being.

The US constitution never was intended as a blueprint or guide book to grant or guarantee anyone their rights. The constitution was meant as a set of rules to prevent government from ever establishing it's own rights. The purpose of the constitution was to define and establish the chains that bind GOVERNMENT into submissive servility to YOU and ME.

Your rights and my rights are bigger than the constitution. That piece of paper is for the purpose of presenting fair warning before whacking uncle sam everytime he gets out of line. It is the equivalent of the peoples' posted sign that says "warning, trespassers will be shot on sight". Just because a posted sign says "warning, trespassers will be shot on sight", DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONLY TRESSPASSERS WILL BE SHOT AND ALL OTHER CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS FREE TO PASS.

The constitution is not a G-DAMN permission slip to show to big brother every time we ask him to please allow us one of our rights. We don't ask big brother jack sh1t. He is our sevant. And if he ever forgets it, the constitution has been posted as a warning to HIM that he will be shot on sight.

Do you recognize and comprehend the difference? Do you see how differently the constitution is interpreted when understanding this CORRECT point of view I just laid out?

Kentak
September 8, 2008, 09:55 PM
I applaud your wanting to hold their feet to the fire for a selective support of constitutional rights, but keep in mind you're not going to win any points in a debate with someone who knows constitutional law inside and out. They've heard all the interpretations and arguments before.

Besides, that issue is a moot point. Why don't you ask, "Now that SCOTUS has ruled that RKBA is an individual right, is the ACLU going to support and defend that right against government infringement as forcefully and enthusiastically as the others?"

K

MIL-DOT
September 8, 2008, 10:09 PM
You could ask: If the Government didn't mean for individuals to own and bear armms, why didn't they start confiscating them immediately after ratifying the constitution over 200 years ago?
You could ask: Why is it that the term "the people",everywhere it's used in the constitution,means exactly that,"THE PEOPLE", yet in this one isolated case, we're supposed to believe "the people" now refers to government controlled military organizations ?

Kentak
September 8, 2008, 10:14 PM
Loomis said We are born with our rights. our rights pre-existed The US government, the US constitution, and even pre-existed all forms of government and written language.

Ummm, that's one belief. However, it's on an intellectual level with pixie dust.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1342-Natural_Rights.aspx

Answered by William Thomas

Rights are fundamental political principles. As such, they are based in morality. They summarize how human beings ought to be treated in a social context, and what are the fundamental ways in which we ought to deal with others. Objectivism holds that there is basically one fundamental right: the right to live free from force. Other rights apply, extend, or support this fundamental right.

Rights are "natural" in the same way any true principle is natural: it is based on facts of reality. See my FAQ, Why Should One Act on Principle, for more details.

So people are not "born with" these rights. In fact, that is absurd: rights are principles we discover and learn to apply. What people are born with is the natural capacities for reason and independent living, and the biological need for material goods, that are the essential bases for individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

Ayn Rand encapsulized this point in Atlas Shrugged, where she wrote:

"If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is is purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational."

(paperback, 1959, p. 986)

A supernatural creator has nothing to do with justifying rights. Indeed, we could not in justice call a moral rule originating in a supernatural creator "natural." In essence, "nature" is what can be known by reason; the supernatural, it is said, is the un-natural, that which cannot be known by reason. Theist defenders of rights would therefore do better to call their view "supernatural rights theory." But fortunately, defenders of natural rights in the past for the most part based their view on rational arguments related to the facts of human nature, and not merely on religious whims.

I hope this answer helps you understand the issue more clearly. Please troll around our website and see what else you can learn there. Read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead and discover Ayn Rand's world-view. I hope you will stay interested in Objectivism and come to see that a rational world-view is one of optimism and confidence in the powers of human knowledge.

Mountie855
September 8, 2008, 10:36 PM
The news story a while back about the ACLU preparing to sue a United States Marine because he shot and killed a wounded Iraqi insurgent that appeared to be reaching for a grenade pin tells me all I need to know about the ACLU.

lee n. field
September 8, 2008, 11:35 PM
I want to spank them a mite during question and answer time after the presentation.

I would say, don't ask them, tell them that their KABA stance is a problem.

mljdeckard
September 8, 2008, 11:50 PM
Ask to see their hands. Scratch your head when their second finger isn't missing. (They skip two when they count to ten.)

I used that one on a cousin of mine who came home from college an ACLU disciple. She had no idea what the second amendment says, nor what position, if any, the ACLU has ever taken regarding it. I then proceeded to lecture her about what a fundamental human right really is, and that one has just as much right to protect themselves from harm as they do to speak their mind. Bearing arms is every bit as much the means to implement this right as printing presses are the implementation of freedom of speech. A right delayed is a right denied. Yes or no?

I doubt you will get that far.

tpaw
September 9, 2008, 11:00 PM
Don't go it alone. Have a few friends with questions sit in different sections of the room. That way, more questions can be asked. Once they realize your stance, they will just ignore you.

MIL-DOT
September 10, 2008, 09:39 AM
(quote) "I hope you will stay interested in Objectivism and come to see that a rational world-view is one of optimism and confidence in the powers of human knowledge."

Uh, considering the history of the human race, if you really have "optimism and confidence in the powers of human knowledge",not to mention subscribe to the "world view" of Ayn Rand, then honorable member Loomis ain't the one here "on an intellectual level with pixie dust". ;)

Phil Lee
September 10, 2008, 10:40 AM
You don't have to believe in a creator to accept the idea that a person has rights by reason of his/her existence (birth). Certainly, the founders had that revolutionary notion and it drove how they drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And that idea isn't pixie dust. It is a logical consequence of how people should peacefully interact in society.

The problem today is that the people haven't really learned their birthright and the nature of the American Constitution remains a mystery to them. We need to teach at every opportunity that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it grants powers from the people and protects pre-existing rights, even to those choosing to display cynical wit to satisfy their ego.

Zedo
September 10, 2008, 11:49 PM
The ACLU stand on the Second Amendment aligns with Heller v. Wash. DC (SCOTUS 07-290). That's the current reading of Article II, and the ACLU is up to speed on it.

Ask them something germane -- like about Gitmo and habeus corpus. Before you get all fired up and indignant, read up on Gitmo and habeus corpus so you don't embarass the gun owners in the nation who understand American Civil Liberties and the current state of stare decisis.

redneckdan
September 11, 2008, 10:29 AM
for anyone here who might go, here is the info.


http://action.aclumich.org/site/Calendar?view=Detail&id=101681&JServSessionIdr012=ted527mq53.app1a

hso
September 11, 2008, 11:11 AM
Keep in mind that the National ACLU has not acted against individual RKBA. They have acted on behalf of the 4th in cases that inadvertently supported 2A. State ACLU offices have acted directly on behalf of RKBA supporting the 2A as an individual right protected by the BOR just like the 1A. The two examples I'm aware of are the Texas and the Nevada state ACLUs who have taken our approach to 2A. It is the neutrality of the National ACLU on the individual interpretation of the 2A that needs to change.

I would focus on that issue. If the Michigan ACLU hasn't supported the 2A in the past, ask them if they intend to change the state organization position in the light of Heller just as other state ACLUs have supported the 2A prior to Heller.

Do your homework and be sure you understand what the Michigan ACLU's position is and not just assume that the National organization's positions are parroted at the state level.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/11/only-nevada-aclu-opposes-gun-control/

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05guns.html?_r=1&em&ex=1175918400&en=1844ac9bdf566719&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/ACLU_President_Strossen_on_religion,_drugs,_guns_and_impeaching_George_Bush

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/07/might-the-aclu.html

Here's a good read on Nevada before their 2A activism on behalf of the individual RKBA. It contains several great points you can use. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/Oct-30-Thu-1997/opinion/6312337.html

Scoupe
September 11, 2008, 12:17 PM
hso,

Excellent info and level-headed take.

My main points to the OP would be to avoid any kind of "gotcha" tactics, labeling, or baiting. Know your facts, and their facts, in and out.

george29
September 11, 2008, 02:03 PM
I seem to recall that the ACLU was NOT interested in protecting the constitutional rights of the American Nazi Party when they applied for a permit to march in Skokie Il, a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago. Only one (Jewish) lawyer from the ACLU took on their case stating that "Rights are Rights and emotions have no precedence to the inaliable Rights that the Constitution grants ALL citizens." What this Jewish lawyer proved is that very few of the ACLU fight for Rights unless they agree with them on an emotional level (which makes them IMO stereotypical Liberals) and secondly, that we as humans are, for the most part stereotypical in our herd mentality, precisely why the Constitution was written, to provide safety and equality for all. This Jewish lawyer (very brave man IMO) fought against the reppression of the Constitution and NOT for the American Nazi Party, he was ultimately ostracized by the Jewish community AND the ACLU. He also won the case although the Nazi's already decided to move their march from Skokie to Humboldt Park in Chicago, a place where the Nazi's figured they would have more support and less problems. The ACLU (IMO) picks it's fights and is NOT a champion of the Constitution as a complete article.

Phil Lee
September 11, 2008, 02:32 PM
hso writes:
Keep in mind that the National ACLU has not acted against individual RKBA.

The National ACLU claims to be neutral on gun control stating (http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html#3_5):
What is the ACLU's position on gun control?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe 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. For more information, please read our statement on gun control.

The link to their "statement on gun control" leads to a blank page currently, but the web archive gives their policy statement (http://web.archive.org/web/20070209170838/http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html) dating to 2002 with the statement:
Gun Control (3/4/2002)
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.

While individual state organizations in Nevada, Texas, and Arizona (http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html#3_5) differ in their support of RKBA, certainly the national ACLU continues to be guided by their policy #47 adopted in 1979 (http://textfiles.poboxes.info/politics/GUNS/2nd_aclu) :
Gun Control Policy #47

The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and
adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective
one, existing only in the collective population of each state for
the purpose of maintaining an effective state militia.
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing
interpretation of the Second Amendment 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.
Nor does the ACLU believe that there is a significant civil
liberties value apart from the Second Amendment in an individual
right to own or use firearms. Interests of privacy and self-
expression may be involved in any individual's choice of
activities or possessions, but these interests are attenuated
where the activity, or the object sought to be possessed, is
inherently dangerous to others. With respect to firearms, the
ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal
regulation which substantially restricts the individual's
interest in freedom of choice. 1/
However, particular federal or state laws on licensing,
registration, prohibition or other regulation of the manufacture,
shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil
liberties questions. For example, the enforcement process of
systems of licensing, registration, or prohibition may threaten
extensive invasions of privacy as owners are required to disclose
details of ownership and information about their personal
history, views, and associations. Furthermore, police
enforcement or such schemes may encourage entrapment, illegal
searches and other means which violate civil liberties.
The ACLU takes the position that any such legislation must
be drafted bearing these problems in mind and seeking to minimize
them. [Board Minutes, June 14-15, 1979.]

If you ask Senators Chuck Schumer or John Kerry or Barack Obama whether they support the Second Amendment, the answer will be that they do. However, when they make that statement, they don't mean the same thing that I would in such an answer.

The devil is in the details.

The ACLU national organization says it is neutral on gun control, but their details include their statement that the "Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership". But all the restrictions proposed by gun control proponents are "reasonable" -- just look at their language.

"shall not be infringed" becomes "its a matter for the legislature and courts to determine whether the infringement is reasonable."

So, the national ACLU's notion of neutrality is clear. It means they won't stand in the way of any infringement of the Second Amendment which doesn't affect the other amendments.

Some neutrality!

I have to wonder about people who would describe the ACLU as neutral. Would they also tell us that Schumer, Kerry and Obama support the Second Amendment?

hso
September 11, 2008, 03:20 PM
If you ask Senators Chuck Schumer or John Kerry or Barack Obama whether they support the Second Amendment, the answer will be that they do. However, when they make that statement, they don't mean the same thing that I would in such an answer.


There's a world of difference between saying you're neutral and actively working to destroy RKBA all the while you're saying it and saying you're neutral and doing nothing for or against RKBA. The ACLU hasn't put a lawyer in a courtroom working against us while Schumer and Kerry have a well known record working against us.

I honestly don't know where this hatred for the ACLU comes from in the gun community since refusing to help us is all they're guilty of.

Phil Lee
September 11, 2008, 03:40 PM
hso says:
I honestly don't know where this hatred for the ACLU comes from in the gun community since refusing to help us is all they're guilty of.

They are guilty of far more than just "refusing to help us." After the Heller ruling, the national ACLU posted the statement (http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html):
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

Let me put it in terms you might understand: Suppose a person witnesses an ongoing attack of a young woman by a knife wielding assailant who returns again and again over a 20 minute period to stab the woman. Suppose the woman screams for help many times over this period. Suppose this person says, I'm neutral and will not call the police to intervene nor intervene myself.

Do you find that neutral person worthy of admiration? or worthy of contempt?

The ACLU has hidden behind the Miller decision and ignored a number of other cases and history that find or show the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to arms. They have proclaimed neutrality while ignoring the mugging the American constitution has taken at the hands of gangs of scummy politician who lie at every turn.

And, as they say, "that's not all folks". The idea that the ACLU is actually neutral is crap -- if you don't know so, it is only because you are willfully ignorant.

Henry Bowman
September 11, 2008, 04:58 PM
Do you find that neutral person worthy of admiration? or worthy of contempt?
The ACLU is not a person; it is an organization.

The point is that, regardless of their stated position, they are not actively working in opposition to us. We don't need their help. Why kick this sleeping dog? Let it be.

Art Eatman
September 11, 2008, 05:29 PM
Arrrrghhh! I oughta delete everything after Post 28, on.

Read the opening post. This thread is NOT about anybody's opinion of the ACLU or what they did about Nazis or whatever.

The deal is for questions such as YOU might ask in a POLITE, public gathering.

Always remember you're an ambassador for the Second Amendment. Act like it.

:(, Art

Phil Lee
September 11, 2008, 06:35 PM
Art, you are exactly right -- the original poster had the intent to "spank" the ACLU on gun control.

If I stepped over the bounds of discussing means by which the ACLU might be spanked by expressing an opinion about the ACLU, I plea responding to a comment by the moderator hso. If the response is out of bounds, so is the question and I suggest you guys take it up internally before you come out in a public thrashing of members.

As for Henry Bowman's point that the ACLU is an organization, not a person, I'm amazed he thinks others are so clueless as to not see the distinction.

Obviously, I had presented an analogy to explain to hso something he didn't understand. It is only an analogy.

If you believe, as do I, that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individuals, that this right is essential to liberty and that gun control going beyond denial to certain criminals is unconstitutional, what are you to think of an organization that supports politicians who continually try to diminish this right.

Oh, but the ACLU isn't actively working against us, you might say, they are just supporting politicians who are working against us (because of these politicians are good for other issues). Sorry, this sort of distinction about "actively working against us" is lost on me.

Now, with the Supreme Court saying the DC ban on handguns isn't reasonable by any standard and that it is unconstitutional, the ACLU takes the position that the Court is wrong.

The national ACLU seems to be awake and barking on gun control to me.

george29
September 11, 2008, 11:59 PM
Read the opening post. This thread is NOT about anybody's opinion of the ACLU or what they did about Nazis or whatever.


The OP was looking for ammunition to use against the ACLU in their stance against the 2A. IMO, the 2A is no more nor more less important than many of the other ammendments, and the reason I wrote what I did was to prove that the ACLU will shred the document wherever and whenever it appeals to them. In the case of the Chicago Nazis, it was the first amendment, in the case of Heller, it is the second that they are in dissent of. So I respectfully disagree with you Art. Nazi's and the First Amendment have as much to do with the OP's question as Heller and the Second Amendment.
The ACLU's current stance is that the 2nd amendment is a collective right even though 'the right of the people..shall not be infringed' clearly applies to individuals just as the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments mention 'people ' in a way applicible to individuals...not just society as a whole.
First Amendment reads:
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.


The Right of the people included American Nazi's yet they decided to ignore their rights. (No, I don't like Nazi's either). My point? The ACLU ignores or interprets as they see fit and therefore are dangerous and should be challenged as the OP is planning, and freedom loving members here are just trying to be helpful in supplying OP with options.

hoosier8
September 12, 2008, 12:08 AM
I'll keep this short, don't wear your Highroad ID on your lapel.

Please keep us informed, I will be looking for the outcome later.

ChrisVV
September 15, 2008, 01:40 AM
This should be interested. Best of luck and good for you for taking action.

bogie
September 17, 2008, 12:53 AM
Guys... I've said this before, and I'll probably say it again...

Join the ACLU.

The "liberals" didn't take over this, and other, organizations by standing outside and protesting, or being adversarial in meetings. They became part of the organizations, and took them over from within.

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