ACLU blasted on own blog

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sheldon J

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
989
Location
Cereal City, Michigan
From World Net Daily
Hundreds of comments have been posted in just the first few days of July, almost uniformly condemning the ACLU's explanation of its position on gun rights, which is that individuals don't have them.

"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller," the page started. "While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."
Click to expand...
ACLU Blog in case you want to add your twe cents worth.:evil:
 
That's hilarious. I wonder what they'll do next. Even if they backtrack and say that they see it as an individual right, I doubt they'll mean it.
 
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller," the page started. "While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."
Click to expand...

Sheesh. You gun owners are never happy. The ACLU position has historical precedent in this country.

All the ACLU said is that its interpretation of the Second Amendment is right and the Supreme Court's is wrong. Think about it. You can disagree with the Supreme Court too.

That's what was done in the past when the Supreme Court ruled that black people had a right to vote. The governors of some states and the mayors or police chiefs of cities disagreed, so they didn't let black people vote.

So what's the big deal? The ACLU is simply following the long historical precedent set by other bigots in the past.
 
Membership, membership, and membership.

I've been to ACLU events. I usually wear one of my tie-dyes...

You can butt heads with them forever. Or you can take them over from within easily within a couple of years. This ain't an IQ test, campers...
 
Lots of fun. Put in a comment myself.

Sad to see the handful of misspelled and profanity-laced comments about commies, Hitler, etc. but I guess we can't police every single one of our ranks.

Also a bit annoying to see the repeated whines about "censorship". Again, with feeling: you don't have first amendment rights on a privately owned website.

All in all, though, good times.
 
Wonder who made that

decision, I'm a member and they never asked me. The comments are a hoot. The "collective" language sounds like wishful thinking, like Adrian Fenty's definition of a "machine gun."
 
Where does the ACLU get it's funding, anyone know?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the ACLU gets almost 90% of its funding from its members.

The ACLU has hefty financial resources because its members don't complain that it asks them for money. ACLU members are much less sophisticated than gun owners. :)
 
Membership, membership, and membership.

I've been to ACLU events. I usually wear one of my tie-dyes...

You can butt heads with them forever. Or you can take them over from within easily within a couple of years. This ain't an IQ test, campers...
Click to expand...

I think I'll steer clear of such an endeavor.

I have no desire to fund the American Communist Lovers United.

Instead of wasting money on some quest to change the ACLU from the inside, the money could be sent to an effective pro-gun organization that would immediately get to work doing what you claim the ACLU will do eventually.
 
.38 Special said:
Sad to see the handful of misspelled and profanity-laced comments about commies, Hitler, etc. but I guess we can't police every single one of our ranks.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The "Anti-Christian-Liberals-United" and the various variations I keep reading over and over are weak.
 
I'm post 433.

The ACLU seems to forget that the Second Amendment was included because the fathers sought to preserve in the people a means to overthrow a tyranny. Without arms, the people's right to freedom of assembly, speech, religion, freedom against unlawful search and seizure, freedom from self-incrimination means nothing. If the government can trample over all those rights at will and without repercussions, then the Bill of Rights becomes a footnote in history. This bit of shortsightedness is reprehensible for an organization that champions itself as a defender of our liberties.
Click to expand...
 
I put in a comment, but I doubt they will like it. I simply told the truth, that the D.C. law (like GCA 68) had one purpose - to keep African-Americans from having guns. Period.

ASCLSPU - Americans for Some Civil Liberties for Some People Union.

Jim
 
I gave up looking for a comment that was positive towards the ACLU's "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment. LOL they've really lost all credibility and pretense that they are anything other than another socialist adgenda promotion group.

BTW, more info from their website PRIOR to the Heller ruling:

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

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
— The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
Click to expand...

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
 
Last edited:
That's hilarious. I wonder what they'll do next. Even if they backtrack and say that they see it as an individual right, I doubt they'll mean it.
Click to expand...

Bingo Picard! What exactly would they do to advance the 2nd ammendment after making that statement? Put it simply, any credibility they might have had is gone IMO...
 
Basically, my view is this:

The NRA helps protect Amendment 2
The ACLU helps protect the rest
And I do my part to help in my neck of the woods
 
My myopic view is this:

The ACLU says it is all about protecting civil liberties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now definitively rules that the right to keep [they didn't rule on "bear"] arms IS an individual [thus "civil"] right.

The ACLU should therefore start protecting that civil right. Doesn't matter if they "agree" with the court's decision. The court's decision establishes what the law of the land says. The ACLU defends a lot of other purported civil "rights" that are repugnant to normal people, why do they continue to make an exception for the 2A?

Answer: Because they are morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.
 
.


After they've tarnished their image on so many cases, the ACLU has become one thing:



Irrelevant



Put them in the likes of Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, always there to get their name in the papers, but of no substance whatsoever.


.
 
Arguing with a Liberal is like trying to outbark a Beagle. I've never heard of a Conservative becoming a Liberal after a crime was commited on them, but I know of plenty of Liberals that converted to Conservatism after they were the victims of crime. At least Cows and Sheep taste good.
 
I've never heard of a Conservative becoming a Liberal
Click to expand...

I have. Plenty. We may see more single issue "gun" conservatives start voting Democrat since Heller. They may feel like their rights are safe. To a degree, they are more so than they have ever been.
 
We may see more single issue "gun" conservatives start voting Democrat since Heller.
Click to expand...

These are probably Liberal gun owners. They DO exist and I am acquainted with some of them. To them, owning a gun is about sport shooting and not about RKBA.
 
I'm 398, and I kept it pretty civil.

ETA: Based on the posts, they're being eaten by their own young!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
ACLU's updated stance on 2nd amendment rights
2 3 4 5
Replies
113
Views
8K
John828
J
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
ACLU Second Amendment
Replies
4
Views
514
TexasRifleman
T
J
  • Locked
Heller / Individual Rights / ACLU Policy #47
Replies
20
Views
1K
Ratzinger_p38
R
A
  • Locked
Nevada ACLU supports an individualgun rights
Replies
4
Views
351
ozwyn
O
R
  • Locked
Nevada ACLU supports an individual’s right to bear arms
Replies
3
Views
459
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top