[MitchSchaft]

In general, what do ya'll think of the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/)?

[DaveB]

They are no friend to the RKBA, but they do considerable good work otherwise.

How can you not like an organization whose sole purpose is to keep reminding the government to go back and read the Bill of Rights.

db

[Blackhawk]

Not much.

If a particular issue where somebody's civil rights are violated by a governmental agency doesn't fit their political agenda, they're not interested.

[CZ-75]

Hypocrites who pick and choose the meaning of the BOR and Constitution to suit their usually leftist leanings.

[Bikeguy]

They do a lot of good - as long as you are talking about one of the amendments that they like. I think the name is a misnomer. I wish they were truely civil libertarians.

[Skunkabilly]

Because of them I used to think the word 'unconstitutional' was only used by socialist whiners.

[jmbg29]

What Blackhawk and CZ-75 said.

[Zander]

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth.

Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it." -- Roger Baldwin, Co-Founder, ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

The ACLU hasn't strayed far from its roots. To its historical animus re: our 2nd Amendment Rights, it has added a campaign to remove any hint of religious expression from public life under the interpretation...an outright lie...that our Constitution requires "separation of church and state".

If they willingly misinterpret the 1st and 2nd Amendments, which is [are?] next?

The ACLU cannot be trusted...and I do not understand how anyone of conscience can support the organization.

[Dannyboy]

What do I think about an organization that is supporting NAMBLA and their "Constitutional" right to sexually molest young boys? I think they should all be sent to the Workers' Paradises of the world, i.e. China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Or we should just puth them in boats and sink them. I'm good either way.

[CZ-75]

Anyone have more info on NAMBLA and the ACLU?

[Dannyboy]

Anyone have more info on NAMBLA and the ACLU?

Here's the link to The O'Reilly Factor website.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74549,00.html

[Waitone]

The ACLU was founded by a leaping, screaming marxist. The organization has never repudiated its original intent nor has it strayed from its past.

They recently hired a couple of token conservatives (Bob Bar and Dick Armey) because they realized their access to the levers of power in DC just ended. They had to put on a conservative fig leaf to simply have hope of access.

I think the NRA made a mistake in siddling up to the ACLU to fight Campaign finance control. I can't wait to see the ACLU ride to the defense of the second amendment. It ain't gonna happen so why did the NRA jump into bed?

[Don Gwinn]

Poseurs and hypocrites. The Left's answer to The Moral Majority. Like the MM, though, they find an acorn once in awhile.

[Standing Wolf]

I'll start to commence to begin to consider taking the A.C.L.U. about 1% seriously when it stops practicing anti-Second Amendment bigotry.

The Bill of Rights is not a cafeteria.

[Zander]

They recently hired a couple of token conservatives (Bob Bar and Dick Armey)...I know this was rumored; did it actually happen?

I don't think so...[willing to be proven wrong]

[Gary H]

They don't have AClu

[ahenry]

In theory they seem great. I mean hey, they want to be a gov’t watchdog. Sounds good to me. In practice however, they seem only concerned with defending whatever “right” is most harmful to America, like NAMBLA.

[Seawolf]

I know this was rumored; did it actually happen?

I don't think so...[willing to be proven wrong]

It happened, a long time ago

[Bob Locke]

I think they get it right about 25% of the time, but blow it so hugely on the other 75% that they aren't worth acknowledging.

[Zundfolge]

The ACLU proves the old adage "A broken clock is right twice a day."

[Zander]

"The American Civil Liberties Union recently hired as one of its few conservative [b]consultants, and Barr is also working part time for the American Conservative Union, Oliver North's Freedom Alliance and as a commentator for Cable News Network." -- AP, 17Feb03

It happened, a long time agoHe just left office...how long ago is a long time ago?



"Running CSE [Citizens for a Sound Economy](with C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel during the first Bush administration) will be "a primary occupation of my time," -- Dick Armey

So it appears that both Barr and Armey are paid to [b]consult to the ACLU, not to be W-2 employees. In fact, it's obvious that they both have more important things to do than spend all their time with the American Criminal Liberties Union.

[CZ-75]

Here's the link to The O'Reilly Factor website.


I read it. Pretty disgusting. :barf:

[Blackhawk]

They don't have ACluExcellent, Gary! :D

[Drjones]

Blackhawk, CZ-75, and Bikeguy all hit it exactly.

They only support whatever amendments fit their socialistic agenda.

Funny this should come up now....I just read an article written by the Executive Director of the ACLU, Ira Glasser, for my "Ethnic Studies" class.

We have to keep reading logs on our reading (yes, grade-schoolish, I know... :rolleyes: ) and here's what I wrote: (just a *bit* of a rant... :D Oh, and the quotes are directly from Ira's essay.)


“Civil Rights and Civil Liberties” by Ira Glasser p. 78-96
The hypocrisy here is positively sickening. I simply cannot put into words, nor adequately express in mere writing, the disgust, contempt, and loathing I feel towards this man who claims to support “Civil Liberties and Civil Rights.” He even works for the ACLU, of all organizations. Yet the ACLU does not recognize the Second Amendment as being an individual right. They support the 1939 Supreme Court ruling of U.S. v. Miller, (so says their website) which is a vague and ambiguous ruling on the Second Amendment stating that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is NOT an individual right; it is instead a collective right.
Need I remind the ACLU that without firearms, today we would be speaking the Queen’s English and breaking for tea every day at 4. There would be no ACLU, (as there would be no America) and desecrating the Queen’s flag would probably get you beheaded, or at least a new boyfriend in the Queen’s dungeon. Yet the ACLU doesn’t see fit to protect the Rights of American Citizens to own the very tools with which this country was created. Incredible.

Yet the ACLU unequivocally supports the First Amendment, as well as a host of other Amendments that fit their agenda. How the ACLU sees fit to pick and choose which constitutionally protected rights they will help defend is beyond me.

Furthermore, as they advertise quite well on their website, the ACLU upholds the “right” of people to burn our nation’s flag. While I VERY reluctantly agree that such actions should be constitutionally protected, I find it sickening that people would choose to desecrate a symbol of the country that millions of people have died defending. Countless people have died and suffered for another’s right to burn our flag. Sick.

“Slavery is the original sin of this country. Like original sin in Catholic theology, it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to wash away.” Only if you: a) subscribe fully to such theological fables, and b) do not do your part to help “wash it away.” A (black) man wrote in an essay I read, “When are blacks going to do their part to close the racial divide?”

“The Bill of Rights was designed to guarantee all of us certain rights against the government.” That should be amended to say: “so long as you don’t want to claim to have a “right” to own guns, since the ACLU has taken it upon itself to ignore that right.” So, we agree that the Constitution and BOR exist to protect us from the govt, correct? Yet, when it comes to a Constitutionally protected RIGHT that doesn’t fit their agenda (firearms), the ACLU says, “Govt.: go ahead and pass all the laws you want!” Cool. Splendid. Grand. (I told ya I was passionate about 2A issues!!!)

:D

[4570Rick]

American Communist Liberals Union

Anti Christian Lawyers Union

All Clueless Lawyers Unite

:neener:

[Gray Peterson]

What do I think about an organization that is supporting NAMBLA and their "Constitutional" right to sexually molest young boys?

Because they're representating NAMBLA in a court case?

If my understanding of the NAMBLA case is correct, this is my opinion on the whole deal:

It's long been ruled that information for dissemination of illegal activity, such as growing weed (High Times), building bombs (anarchist cookbook), and other information on how to commit a crime are legal to disseminate under the First Amendment. What the people who are suing NAMBLA are basically saying that that organization gave the person who commited the murder the means and the ability to commit the crime.

If they win, that means that this country would go down a major slippery slope in terms of 1st amendment protection.

Today, it could be how to lure and molest a child (as very disgusting as it is, there's a point to this). Tommorow, it could be how to repair and fix an illegal firearm. I've seen many publications online by groups on how to convert weapons to full auto. These publications are LEGAL, because of the same first amendment protection that is given to NAMBLA.

What I'm trying to say is: Be careful what you wish for. Once the government, or the civil courts, start having the ability to make people or groups responsible for information dissemination, we ALL could be targetted. In fact, isn't that what the gun industry is being faced with? Lawsuits that claim because they sell guns, they're selling a deadly product and therefor responsible for all things eminating from said firearms.

What about information on how to more effectively kill a target with a firearm (Like the Mozambique technique). What if someone said they used that technique that they learned against the attacker from, say, Handguns Magazine, the family found out about it, and not only sued the person who shot the attacker, but also Handguns Magazine for disseminating the information? What about Front Sight? Or LFI? or Thunder Ranch? Would they all the sudden start being responsible for the death and injury of people who learn and use their technique?

Heed my words carefully. Before long, stuff like knowledge of the Mozambique technique would become thoughtcrime....

[foghornl]

A-ssinine
C-ommunist
L-iars
U-nion


Any questions ? ? ? ? anyone? ? anyone? ?

[buzz_knox]

Information which can be used to carry out illegal activity is protected by the First Amendment. Information which tends to incite such activity is not protected. The NAMBLA case is about an organization whose goal is to legalize child rape, disseminating information on how to target children and rape them without legal repercussions. Given their espoused goals and the fact that the people likely to be reading it are already predisposed to this type of criminal action, it is not protected under the First Amendment, given Supreme Court precedents on this issue.

[Waitone]

Information which can be used to carry out illegal activity is protected by the First Amendment. Information which tends to incite such activity is not protected. :banghead:

[CMichael]

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[Delmar]

Yeah-nice group, so long as you're a goose steppin baby raper who wants to demolish the Boy Scouts. BTW-I think the Boy Scouts have done more good for this country than those elitest punks will ever do.

[mjustice]

When the defend the *entire* constitution and the BoR, I'll think about jumping in.

Selective defense = Selective donations!

MJ

[Schuey2002]

A-ssinine
C-ommunist
L-iars
U-nion


Your absolutely correct,foghornl !! :D

Here's what I think of them, wait a sec while I go ...:barf: :barf:

[ZekeLuvs1911]

I don't.

[cuchulainn]

While not directly fighting against gun rights, the ACLU cops out on the 2nd, claiming it is settled law (Miller = guns only for state militia and such garbage). They'd never simply roll-over blindly to "settled law" on other issues. Their "settled law" excuse is just a rationalization to avoid addressing the issue.

I strongly suspect that the supposed ACLU debates on the 2nd about 10 or 15 years ago consisted of a committee that sat around and asked, "OK, how to we avoid this 2nd Amendment thing because our core donors are anti-gun even if we need to proclaim neutrality?" And then they quickly slapped together an opinion in an afternoon without really examining the issue, like a college freshman cutting and pasting factoids the night before turning in a paper.

At least it reads that way to me. See: http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25&Type=s

Despite the March 2002 date on that link, it's essentially the same ACLU statement I saw 10 or more years ago. There's been a lot of scholarly work and court activity since then, but the ACLU simply rehashes a cop-out it whipped up in the late '80s or early '90s (or perhaps earlier ... anyone know?)

[bogie]

You know something? If enough NRA members joined the ACLU, and went to their meetings, and made their voices heard, things would change.