The ACLU, an idea


PDA






Caliper_RWVA
January 28, 2010, 11:30 PM
Had an idea recently. I'm not sure how everyone here feels about the ACLU, but we can all agree that they are a longstanding and active organization, but a little weak on the 2A. The ACLU's official position on the 2A is that it is a "collective" right (whatever that means) see: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

Well, apparently with the recent financial turmoil, one of the ACLU's major donors is unable to make his/her/their regular donation. This has left the ACLU with a 20% budget shortfall and they are of course looking to their other members to help make this up.

Sounds like an opportunity to me. We are all accustom to contacting local Senators and Representatives, why not write the ACLU? Would you write the ACLU a check (or a larger one) if they stood up for the 2A as much as they did the 1A and other rights? Tell them how you feel about the 2A. Tell them that there is no collective right without an individual right. Remind them that "The People" referred to in all the rest of The Bill of Rights are individuals. Let them know that their stance on the 2A is preventing you from writing them a check! (or a bigger one)

Go here: http://www.aclu.org/contact-us and let them know. Let's see what we can accomplish, right?

If you enjoyed reading about "The ACLU, an idea" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletchbutt152
January 28, 2010, 11:43 PM
I suppose, but they're not gettin' a cent until they spend some good money promoting
2A on the all media circuits.

Ashcons
January 29, 2010, 12:00 AM
I agree with your sentiment and idea, but from what I recall on their mission-statement-type of literature and arguments, they are politically prone to follow progressive-democrat themes, including supporting gun control. Without being down about 100% of their budget and clearing out some detritus in the board/ED position, I doubt their political motivation for pushing agenda would change too much :)

I did send them a short contact e-mail expressing my desire to donate to causes that promote 2A freedom, though.

mljdeckard
January 29, 2010, 12:01 AM
I agree. What is to prevent them from taking the money and blowing you off? If they came to me WITH the NRA-ILA with a new leaf having been turned over, I would.....read their pamphlet very carefully.

PublicRelations
January 29, 2010, 12:03 AM
Why not send them an email suggesting they support 2A as strongly as they support anything else.

It cannot do our cause any harm and has the potential to do great good.

I will send them an email. :)

Ashcons
January 29, 2010, 04:23 PM
Dear Mr. _____,
Thank you for the question about the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment. 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. 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.

You can find more about the ACLU's positions at http://www.aclu.org

If you are not already an ACLU member, we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about. To join please visit http://www.aclu.org or call 1-888-567-ACLU. They seem to ignore that without individual rights, there are no collective rights. Wonder how they'd feel about licensing speeches or writing.

Sincerely,
D. Barber
Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union


As you can see, they're "neutral" on gun control. Obviously gun registration is no different than car registration. This irony really made me laugh, "we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about." They seem to selectively ignore the fact that without individual rights, there are no collective rights. Bet I could guess how they would feel about licensing for speaking and writing.

shockwave
January 29, 2010, 04:28 PM
Hard to understand why they get so demonized. They defend Nazis if Constitutional rights are at risk. The ACLU is an extremely neutral organization that follows the letter of the law. It's just that when the law is accurately followed, it's less strictly conservative than many would prefer. The NLA is our PAC and our Association and they represent the interests and rights of gun owners, as well as promoting safe and responsible ownership.

You support the ACLU if you are concerned about civil liberties and the Bill of Rights in general. Support the NRA if you want to actively support the 2nd Amendment.

TexasRifleman
January 29, 2010, 04:32 PM
As you can see, they're "neutral" on gun control.

Not hardly.

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.



That's far from neutral.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/organization-news-and-highlights/heller-decision-and-second-amendment

Right before Heller was decided their website basically said "We agree with Miller". They are an anti organization plain and simple.

Old joke; How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? 1,3,4,5,......

Ashcons
January 29, 2010, 04:42 PM
Apparently sarcasm isn't compatible with the Internet :)

TexasRifleman
January 29, 2010, 04:53 PM
Apparently sarcasm isn't compatible with the Internet

Grrrr.... Sorry, went right over my head LOL

The subject tends to send me into a fit ;)

JImbothefiveth
January 29, 2010, 05:42 PM
Hard to understand why they get so demonized. They defend Nazis if Constitutional rights are at risk. The ACLU is an extremely neutral organization that follows the letter of the law. They get demonised because of stuff like the letter they sent to Ashcons.

You support the ACLU if you are concerned about civil liberties and the Bill of Rights in general. They're not even good with that. You know they once stopped a high school class president from speaking because of her religious views? A high school class president for crying out loud.


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.
In other words, they are open to an assault weapons ban. Show me where there are cars in the constitution!.

Caliper_RWVA
January 29, 2010, 05:56 PM
I agree. What is to prevent them from taking the money and blowing you off?

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you should send a letter with money. Just like with legislators - write and express your opinion but base your vote (money) on actions.

I don't think this is too different from writing a known anti-gun politician. You are not likely to get a positive response, but if you don't let your voice be heard your chance of a positive response is zero. ;)

rm23
January 29, 2010, 06:20 PM
Hard to understand why they get so demonized. They defend Nazis if Constitutional rights are at risk. The ACLU is an extremely neutral organization that follows the letter of the law. It's just that when the law is accurately followed, it's less strictly conservative than many would prefer. The NLA is our PAC and our Association and they represent the interests and rights of gun owners, as well as promoting safe and responsible ownership.

Really? Look at the cases they take. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, all they want to do is further liberal agenda. They care more about removing manger sets and crosses and gays being boy scout leaders than anything else.

Bullnettles
January 29, 2010, 06:26 PM
This is the point, to make them go in another direction. Sadly, support can be bought easily...

shockwave
January 29, 2010, 06:35 PM
Look at the cases they take.

They will go to bat for anyone if their Constitutional rights are being infringed. I've seen enough cases to know that. Thing is, the "ACLU-bashers" only talk about the ones that bother them. When they went to bat for the Skokie marchers, they got immunity from the "they're all liberals!" insult. Anyway, I don't really care all that much, I just don't like to see untruth on the Net and the ACLU are not the bad guys some people make them out to be. Just like the NRA is not a bunch of crazed gun-waving freakos.

And to reiterate that point, the ACLU is not in the business of protecting the Second Amendment - they protect citizens whose rights are being violated. The NRA-ILA in particular is the advocacy organization that politicians listen to, and if you want to donate to a group protecting our interests, they're the best choice.

hso
January 29, 2010, 06:37 PM
I want to remind everyone of the rules for Activism that are clearly posted in the stickie.

Firstly, naysaying someone's plan is one of the things we ask members not to do. Constructive criticism that enhances the plan presented by it's originator is fine, but that's as far as it goes.

Secondly, Activism isn't a discussion forum. It's for presenting plans. Activism Discussion is the place if you want to talk about activism efforts and where glimmers of ideas can be hashed out into real plans. The toleration for negativism is a little broader there, but still not helpful.

Thirdly, we're supposed to be open to all ideas in support of RKBA. Every little bit helps and the combined effort of all elements of the RKBA community is needed. Even the ones "you" may think are naive or silly or a waste of time. Afford the same respect to other members as they're expected to show for your "silly" ideas.

Since this is more of a discussion than a solid plan I'm moving it to the discussion forum for consideration.

TexasRifleman
January 29, 2010, 06:43 PM
And to reiterate that point, the ACLU is not in the business of protecting the Second Amendment - they protect citizens whose rights are being violated.

Pretty much everyone agrees Richard Heller's rights were being violated, even the Supreme Court.

That the ACLU continues to maintain that his rights were NOT violated doesn't really fall in line with your post does it?

DeepSouth
January 29, 2010, 06:49 PM
I'm not sure how everyone here feels about the ACLU

I feel that America and the 2A would be better off without them.

I think our donations would be in better hands with the NRA, Guns Owners of America or similar organizations.

rm23
January 29, 2010, 06:54 PM
And to reiterate that point, the ACLU is not in the business of protecting the Second Amendment - they protect citizens whose rights are being violated.

Is the ACLU in the business of protecting the 1st Amendment? the 4th? the 6th? You better believe it. The 2nd is just as much a civil right as anything else and if I had to pick one from the whole Bill of Rights, honestly, that'd be my pick. So for you to say they protect people whose rights are violated is a total crock.

Go to the ACLU's website. They've got an article celebrating the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (which is pretty disturbing). In the end of June, check their site again to see if they celebrate D.C. v. Heller. Even if they don't fight for the 2nd, they should celebrate the freedom that was confirmed in that case.

Also, there's a high roader who has a quote from one of the founders of the ACLU. I can't quote the whole thing exactly, but it says something to the effect of, "Americans will never knowingly adopt socialism, but they will end up getting it by constantly accepting liberalism."

shockwave
January 29, 2010, 07:05 PM
Go to the ACLU's website. They've got an article celebrating the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Roe v Wade is defense of privacy. Look, this isn't an issue. Support the NRA, Gun Owners of America, but don't go waving the bloody hatchet at organizations that are focused on defending our freedoms. The ACLU isn't in the business of taking away anybody's rights. That's not their lookout. When an individual is being abused of his or her rights, they may take an interest. The main point here still being that they are not an advocacy group, they are pro-bono lawyers fulfilling the law as they see it.

Probably better that we have them around, what, when the government starts stripping you naked in airports, preventing you from buying tickets with cash, they're the ones that might stand up and take your case. The NRA is the best organization I know of that keeps our rights protected and thank God we fund them well.

TexasRifleman
January 29, 2010, 07:11 PM
The ACLU isn't in the business of taking away anybody's rights. That's not their lookout.

In Heller we see a case specifically naming a right and the ACLU says they disagree with it even BEING a right. And it's specifically named in the Constitution.

If they are "pro rights" they should be glad of the Heller ruling even if they choose not to become involved in gun rights cases.

That they specifically state that they continue to disagree even post Heller makes them an anti organization no matter how you try to spin it.

If they were neutral on the gun issue they would not word their response the way they do.

If you want to support the ACLU in the other things they do that's fine, and I have no doubt they have done some good, but their stance on the Second is indefensible.

rm23
January 29, 2010, 07:54 PM
I live in upstate NY. To purchase a pistol, which was confirmed as my right in Heller, I need to fill out an application, find four character references, get fingerprinted, have a background check and register each pistol with the state.

Now imagine, just for a moment that the same was true for abortions. What would the ACLU say?

Your right to having an abortion wouldn't be taken away, but it would be so difficult and such a hassle, that you would likely change your mind and forget about it.

My civil rights are violated every single day. My constitutional right to bear arms is infringed upon and where are they?

The sickest and most dispicable thing about the ACLU is, if that hypothetical was true and I was a woman that wanted to kill my baby, they'd be dying to take the case.

Caliper_RWVA
January 29, 2010, 08:11 PM
Well, seeing as this has gone to discussion...

they protect citizens whose rights are being violated.

My right to keep and bear arms is infringed, even further if you consider the militia aspect of the 2A. I cannot freely buy automatic weapons, never mind more destructive weapons. How can a militia be effective if it cannot face an opposing modern military force on equal footing?

While I do not really agree with the NFA, at heart it is a tax and as long as the tax is not onerous I'm not going to go so far as to say taxation is infringement. What I would honestly like to see however is someone take on the Hughes Amendment. Hughes does infringe by being a de-facto ban of automatic weapons. The average person can no longer outfit themselves in a manner reasonable for a militia.

While I don't see the ACLU easily changing that far, a not-anti-gun ACLU would help to build legal precedent for others to move in that direction.

Lou McGopher
January 29, 2010, 09:30 PM
If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Ask them if they're okay with licensing and registering of printers, printing presses, and websites.

Then ask them again if they'll consider supporting 2A so you can make a donation to them.

kahrdoor
January 29, 2010, 09:47 PM
As an ex boyscout I will be more than happy to send a check to the ACLU, the same day they declare that attacks on them off limit.

hso
January 29, 2010, 09:51 PM
Let me point out that the original idea was to examine changing the ACLU's focus on 2A to becoming actively supportive of RKBA, not to bash the ACLU. The latter is cheap and easy for a lot of folks here and certainly not helpful in advancing the OP's idea. It's awfully lazy to just toss stones.

Carl N. Brown
January 29, 2010, 10:01 PM
While the ACLU joined the NRA and ten or so other citizen's rights organizations in a letter to the Clinton Administration denouncing paramilitary tactics used in the raid on Waco, the ACLU director was quoted back in 1979 as favoring a ban on handguns, but such onerous attacks on basic liberties would be required to enforce it, he would have to oppose his own idea.

ACLU position on gun rights has always been ambiguous. The Bill of Rights should be ALL or NOTHING.

Caliper_RWVA
January 29, 2010, 10:45 PM
ACLU position on gun rights has always been ambiguous. The Bill of Rights should be ALL or NOTHING.

Totally agree. So, LET THEM KNOW! Google tells me that the NRA has over 4 million members while the ACLU only 500,000. Yet, the ACLU seems to get a lot done with their resources (I think the NRA could learn a few things from how the ACLU gets stuff done). Next thing is to consider what the impact could be if every NRA member were to write the ACLU and push for support of the 2A, that's 8x more people than the ACLU claims in their entire organization! If the ACLU has a single calculator, they can see that their 2008 income was $32M (from their website) and that if they could win just $8 from every NRA member by improving their stance on the 2A then they could double their budget. That's some powerful math if you just lost over 20% of your budget.

Seriously, I don't get the resistance to this idea here. I am sure plenty of people here will write a known anti-gun Congressperson, so why the negativity? Another ally is something we could use.

clem
January 29, 2010, 11:07 PM
Joining the ACLU is joining the Communist Party!:fire:

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 30, 2010, 04:09 AM
They will go to bat for anyone if their Constitutional rights are being infringed. I've seen enough cases to know that. Thing is, the "ACLU-bashers" only talk about the ones that bother them. When they went to bat for the Skokie marchers, they got immunity from the "they're all liberals!" insult. Anyway, I don't really care all that much, I just don't like to see untruth on the Net and the ACLU are not the bad guys some people make them out to be. Just like the NRA is not a bunch of crazed gun-waving freakos.

I would like to see them take a lot LESS "establishment of religion" cases and a lot more "free exercise thereof" cases.

squinty
January 30, 2010, 06:56 AM
Dear Mr. _____,
Thank you for the question about the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment. 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. 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.

You can find more about the ACLU's positions at http://www.aclu.org

If you are not already an ACLU member, we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about. To join please visit http://www.aclu.org or call 1-888-567-ACLU. They seem to ignore that without individual rights, there are no collective rights. Wonder how they'd feel about licensing speeches or writing.

Sincerely,
D. Barber
Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union


As you can see, they're "neutral" on gun control. Obviously gun registration is no different than car registration. This irony really made me laugh, "we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about." They seem to selectively ignore the fact that without individual rights, there are no collective rights. Bet I could guess how they would feel about licensing for speaking and writing.
"If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."

Why do cars = guns?
Of course,the constitution does not have an amendment stating that the right to own and operate cars shall not be infringed. If it were written in the 20 th century it might, but it doesn't - and present day restrictions on cars are much less prohibitive than gun restrictions. I like the ACLU but their position on the second amendment is really out of step with their position on the rest of the bill of rights, and they seem unwilling to change.

w_houle
January 30, 2010, 10:11 AM
They're right... guns aren't a right, they're a very extensive privilege. This privilege remains in effect as long as you don't do anything that the collective finds offensive. We can rant and rave all we want, but the truth is that we are in the... We're in a police state :banghead: and the highest per capita prison incarceration rate. Now all we have to do is make hatespeech a felony and...(signal lost)

Quiet
January 30, 2010, 10:52 AM
Some state ACLUs have broken with the national ACLU on the Second Amendment.

Most notable is the ACLU of NV (http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-supports-individual%E2%80%99s-right-bear-arms).


In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision concerning the D.C. handgun ban (District of Columbia v. Heller) the ACLU of Nevada considers it important to clearly state its position regarding the right to bear arms. The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. This policy was formulated by our afilliate Board in light of both the U.S. Constitution and the clearly-stated individual right to bear arms as set out in the Nevada Constitution's Declaration of Rights.

TexasRifleman
January 30, 2010, 11:07 AM
Some state ACLUs have broken with the national ACLU on the Second Amendment.

Oh yes, good point. The state organizations are a completely different story. The Texas ACLU has also been in several pro 2A fights with NRA and TSRA.

Ben86
January 30, 2010, 11:12 AM
OP, your idea is good in theory and well meaning. However, the ACLU mostly consists of a bunch of constitution hating communists who only want to further the progressive agenda. Therefore they will not get a dime from me. They take advantage of well meaning people like you to stay funded.

hso
January 30, 2010, 12:01 PM
Does anybody actually know how the national ACLU policy is set?

Anybody actually know how to join the ACLU at a level that influences that policy?

How about just joining your state ACLU and affecting their policy on 2A? If the majority of state organizations break with the national organization and actively endorse the Heller decision on their own perhaps we'd get some real movement? It's embarrassing to 2A supporting ACLU members that the national ACLU would disagree with SCOTUS and cling to the collective right view. Perhaps we can use that to change the state organizations and eventually force the national to change.

Of course, that would require work and that's a lot more challenging than being a hater.

Ashcons
January 30, 2010, 01:03 PM
Do any of the better writers on the forums have a letter template suggestion for writing to state ACLU to break this problem down into more manageable parts as Hso suggests?

The Arkansas ACLU site makes absolutely no mention of the Second Amendment on its site from what I can see and does not even list gun control or gun ownership on its issues page!

hso
January 30, 2010, 01:17 PM
Anyone remember which state ACLUs have carried out RKBA supporting work?

If we can find out which ones have taken the individual right as the correct view of the 2A we may be able to find the individual attorneys and supporters who championed adoption of our philosophy and simply ask them for advice on how to change our individual state organizations.

Jim K
January 30, 2010, 01:22 PM
When a nutcase outfit called Citizens Against Guns proposed the roundup and execution "without the nonsense of a trial" for anyone who owned a gun, had ever owned a gun, or whose ancestors had ever owned a gun, they claimed to have the blessing of the ACLU. I contacted the ACLU, which never specifically denied the statement or denounced the idea of killing 200 million people. They simply said that gun ownership was not an individual right, which seems to imply that if a lunatic government did decide to murder all gun owners, the ACLU would not object.

Jim

DeepSouth
January 30, 2010, 02:13 PM
When a nutcase outfit called Citizens Against Guns proposed the roundup and execution "without the nonsense of a trial" for anyone who owned a gun, had ever owned a gun, or whose ancestors had ever owned a gun, they claimed to have the blessing of the ACLU. I contacted the ACLU, which never specifically denied the statement or denounced the idea of killing 200 million people. They simply said that gun ownership was not an individual right, which seems to imply that if a lunatic government did decide to murder all gun owners, the ACLU would not object.


Can't help but wonder how that would have worked out for them.:eek:

You can't fix stupid.

Carl N. Brown
January 30, 2010, 06:21 PM
"If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."

If licensing and registration of cars was as discretionary and punitive as the gun licensing and registration laws that get "A" grades from Handgun Control Inc. (aka Brady Campaign), there would be denouncements by ACLU (and evryone else) for blatant violation of due process and equal justice.

There is a cost/benefit justification for car control laws, from driver safety to financial responsibility. The Centers for Disease Control 2003 and the National Research Council 2004 could find no evidence that there was any benefit from any of the gun control laws so far. Guns and cars are different.

Gun laws are based on "crime control" but controlling gun crime by piling restrictions on legal gun owners is like controlling prostitution by piling restrictions on marriage licenses.

Lou McGopher
February 3, 2010, 01:59 PM
Google tells me that the NRA has over 4 million members while the ACLU only 500,000. Yet, the ACLU seems to get a lot done with their resources (I think the NRA could learn a few things from how the ACLU gets stuff done).

I'll bet the ACLU has a higher percentage of members who are lawyers. That probably has something to do with it.

This leads to the next question.... how to get more lawyers to join the NRA?

squinty
February 6, 2010, 06:29 AM
For a long time, it seemed to me that liberals (civil rights activists, civil libertarians, whoever) cared about every amendment in the bill of rights except the second, and conservative cared only about the second amendment exclusively. In the 90s and early 00s I heard many a conservative gun owner pontificate about the absurdity of Miranda rights, warrants, allowing criminals to have lawyers, etc. Rulings against unlawful search and seizure were seen by my conservative friends as "giving rights to criminals" - they only started to care about fourth amendment rights when those rights were violated as part of a gun seizure.

I'm a member of both the ACLU and the NRA. I like the whole Bill of Rights. I would love to see the ACLU revise their opinion of the second amendment, to bring it more in line with their opinion of other individual rights spelled out (or implied) byt the BOR. Not sure it will happen, but pro-gun ACLU members ought to agitate, and let the organisation know that it's stance on gun ownership is out of touch with some of it's membership.

clem
February 6, 2010, 08:42 PM
I'm sorry, I was missunderstood. Let me repeat myself.

"Joining the ACLU is joining the Communist Party!":fire:

hso
February 6, 2010, 08:54 PM
Clem,

Changing the ACLU's position is the objective.

clem
February 6, 2010, 10:41 PM
This is a interesting read:

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/07/18/enemy-within-part-i/

squinty
February 7, 2010, 06:56 AM
For a long time, it seemed to me that liberals (civil rights activists, civil libertarians, whoever) cared about every amendment in the bill of rights except the second, and conservative cared only about the second amendment exclusively. In the 90s and early 00s I heard many a conservative gun owner pontificate about the absurdity of Miranda rights, warrants, allowing criminals to have lawyers, etc. Rulings against unlawful search and seizure were seen by my conservative friends as "giving rights to criminals" - they only started to care about fourth amendment rights when those rights were violated as part of a gun seizure.

I'm a member of both the ACLU and the NRA. I like the whole Bill of Rights. I would love to see the ACLU revise their opinion of the second amendment, to bring it more in line with their opinion of other individual rights spelled out (or implied) by the BOR. Not sure it will happen, but pro-gun ACLU members ought to agitate, and let the organization know that it's stance on gun ownership is out of touch with some of it's membership.
The no fly list is a good example of this right/left disconnect. The link Clem posted berated the ACLU for opposing the no-fly list...liberals railed against the no fly list for years as an unconstitutional violation of civil rights, restricting citizens' freedom to travel based on suspicion alone, with no due process, no chance to appeal or face one's accuser's. Conservatives claimed this was a liberal plot to aid terrorism. To quote the site Clem linked:
"The ACLU has opposed almost everything the government has done to fight terrorism! From the no-fly list to stronger border control, the ACLU has been there to oppose it....in order to grant immunity and protection for sworn enemies of America to carry out their assault on America."
Now liberals are claiming that people on the no-fly list should be barred from purchasing guns, and using the same specious argument - why should we arm TERRORISTS. So now conservatives are up in arms, and have finally rediscovered civil liberties, and suddenly, after eight years supporting it, they realize why the no-fly list is such a despotic tool. Could it be that the ACLU is interested in protecting American citizens from the excesses of government, rather than enabling terrorists? I'll say it again, they are wrong wrong wrong about the second amendment. But they aren't the communist party. There is still an American Communist party, and an American Socialist Workers party. They are separate organizations from the ACLU, the ACLU is not them. To answer the question posed at the top of "Stop the ACLU," to wit :

"Terrorists Have Rights, Too ?"

-no, but accused terrorists do. Just because the government makes a claim about you, that doesn't mean it's true, and mere assertion isn't a good enough reason to circumvent anyone's civil rights to habeas corpus, due process, or any of the other legal constructs (including the second amendment) designed to protect us from tyranny.

So I'm going to write a letter to the ACLU stating that I disagree with their interpretation of the second amendment, and urging them to reconsider in light of the Heller (and hopefully McDonald) decision, and suggest that I'll withdraw my support if they stick to their bs "collective right" definition.

hso
February 7, 2010, 08:40 AM
I think we'll get more traction with the state ACLU than national so I hope everyone that intends to send something to the national organization puts at least as much effort into their state.

JoeSlomo
February 7, 2010, 10:34 AM
Never.

squinty
February 9, 2010, 07:42 PM
Articles about the role guns played in the civil rights movement - an issue dear to the ACLU.

"If the notoriously anti-gun Clinton administration was involved in banning books, the ACLU (of which I'm also a member) would be properly alarmed. Thank God for the NRA and other reputable civil libertarian gun-rights organizations. "

http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/GunsVersusKKK.htm
http://volokh.com/2010/02/08/how-the-right-to-arms-saved-the-non-violent-civil-rights-protesters/

jeffmack
February 9, 2010, 08:13 PM
How about you say you are a performance artist? Your medium is writing your name with a Tommy gun on plywood. Yet you cannot afford all the fees, and thus your First Amendment rights are in jeopardy!:D

I kind of like squinty's views, myself.

Extremely Pro Gun
February 9, 2010, 09:43 PM
I dont care if they love guns. They wont get a cent. This is what the NRA is for.

Fleetwood_Captain
February 9, 2010, 11:39 PM
Funny how the ACLU would condone registration of guns in the same manner has cars.

I wonder what the ACLU would have to say about the registration and licensing of typewriters and modems...

squinty
February 10, 2010, 12:07 AM
How about you say you are a performance artist? Your medium is writing your name with a Tommy gun on plywood. Yet you cannot afford all the fees, and thus your First Amendment rights are in jeopardy!:D

I kind of like squinty's views, myself.
You just talked me into a career change! Maybe I can win a first amendment suit to avoid paying for the NFA tax stamp!
Seriously, that would be some awesome performance art.

IllHunter
February 18, 2010, 02:32 PM
as soon as i see their filed amicus brief for McDonald. It's the same for the democratic states attorney of Illinois, daughter of the democratic Illinois Senate Leader. Ms Madigan. I'll vote for her or him (not my district) when her name joins the other AG's brief. The second amendment is my litmus test for politicians and "Constitutional Lawyers, Scholars and Teachers". Any bs about " collective right" or "reasonable restrictions" is an automatic failing grade.Prevarication about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" will not be tolerated. During the vetting of candidates prior to our Feb2 primary, I asked each and every candidate this. "Given Heller, assuming McDonald finds Chicago's ban unconstitutional and assuming mayor Daley acts (doesn't act) as mayor Fenty did, how would you respond?" The only good answer was from congress candidates "cut off all funding to Illinois" and from governor candidates "call out the national Guard because the people will riot" and cut all funding to all Chicago programs.The senate candidates all foamed at the mouth and muttered their support for the second' Mark Kirk was asked why his name wasn't on the congressional brief and he had "no knowledge" that's why I don't support him. His NRA rating "F".:eek:

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