Aclu

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vang -- tell you what -- do some research on transnational socialism or tranzis and you will see what the ACLU is. Also check into the National Lawyers Guild.

Here is the bottom line... these elitist scum want to rule us with their socialist ideals, and with themselves set up as unelected rulers. They can't do it through elections because they and their ideals are unelectable, so they do it through the courts.

They try to do it through the UN and the EU as well. :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
The fact is, the founder of the ACLU, Rodger Baldwin was an avowed communist:


Rodger Baldwin established the ACLU in 1917, born in Boston he was a self proclaimed atheist and a World War I draft dodger. Dodging the draft led him to found the organization to help others in their draft evasion process. Baldwin, a Harvard graduate, once wrote in 1935:
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversions is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. Therefore, I AM FOR SOCIALISM, DISARMAMENT AND ULTIMATELY, FOR THE ABOLISHING OF THE STATE ITSELF. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM IS THE GOAL.”

quoted from this website: http://modesty.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_modesty_archive.html
 
Given their ongoing activism against Tasers, I strongly suspect that the ACLU's position is based on being against RKBA more than it is on being uninvolved with it.
Perhaps. But their RKBA copout actually has been around for a good while -- 1980s? (anyone know?). They've maintained neutrality (well, other than giving comfort to the enemy by mindlessly parroting the antis' "settled law" argument).

I suspect that the organization chose neutrality because a large number of its members ($$$$) were not neutral. Attacking the RKBA would undermine their image as fighters for rights, but fighting for it would undermine their cash.

Have they begun to slip into anti-RKBA advocacy? Perhaps. We'll see, I suppose.
 
In response to the OP, Ashcroft had the USDOJ issue a statement that said the 2nd was an individual right. That memo had no legal force behind it and was pretty much just a statement of opinion. Under the new leadership of the DOJ, that memo no longer represents the DOJ's opinion.

As for the ACLU, they are hypocrites when it comes to the 2nd, and their argument for their opinion is about as stupid as it gets, but they do well standing up for liberties in other areas. I am glad they are around even if I don't agree with everything they do.
 
If anything, the ACLU are hypocrites most of the time. Sure, they pick the right side once in a while, but for the most part their advocacy is not for protecting the Bill of Rights and our freedoms, but in undermining or distorting our existing rights and creating new rights that suit their socialist agenda.
 
So if 397 passes and George signs it, does that actually mean he would take some action. It would clear that the DC handgun ban would be a target - and which he has done nothing about.

I'll believe it when I see it.
 
So if 397 passes and George signs it, does that actually mean he would take some action. It would clear that the DC handgun ban would be a target - and which he has done nothing about.

I'll believe it when I see it.
I had forgotten about DC; but of course, this would open the door to an attack on every gun law in DC (as opposed to in the states, which would necessitate the SCOTUS incorporating the 2nd).

As far as will he take some action, no, of course not. If anything is to happen, it's going to happen because citizens bring suit for their rights in federal court.
 
Whatever the ACLU was or could have been, it has been hijacked by a cadre of people with a twisted agenda that is highly selective in its perspective on what constitutes individual rights.
 
Given their ongoing activism against Tasers, I strongly suspect that the ACLU's position is based on being against RKBA more than it is on being uninvolved with it. I acknowledge the possibility that I'm simply taking my general distaste for the organization and generalizing it into unfounded assumptions. You could be right.

What action are they taking against Tasers?

Can someone show me proof that they have actively worked against the right to keep and bear arms? I don't mind people not supporting us as long as they don't actively oppose us.
 
Look up the roster of slimey lawyers in the employ of VPC/Brady/IANSA/George Soros. I'd wager a good number are members of ACLU as well.
 
I'm gonna join the ACLU just to show up at their little coffee clatches and argue for a RKBA.
 
I support the ACLU when they stand up for civil rights issues, but their stance on the 2nd Amendment is not only hypocritical, but also very telling of their fan base.
 
I suspect that the organization chose neutrality because a large number of its members ($$$$) were not neutral. Attacking the RKBA would undermine their image as fighters for rights, but fighting for it would undermine their cash.

In fact, I had a chance to discuss this issue with Ira Glasser, one time head of the ACLU, back in the mid 80's. That was exactly his defense: That so many of the ACLU's financial backers were anti-gun, that being honest about the 2nd amendment would mean financial ruin.

A pathetic rationalization then, and now; Even then the NRA had a far larger membership, and was wealthier. There was no doubt that the ACLU would have brought in more backers and membership by defending the 2nd amendment, than they'd have lost.

But rationalizations don't have to be true, they just have to salve your conscience.
 
The ACLU.....

NOT American,

NOT Civil,

NOT Libertarian,

NOT a Union.

I particularly abhore their extortionist tactics of threatening to bankrupt through expensive federal lawsuits anybody (particularly small school districts) who balks at compliance with their "cease and desist" threat letters.

IIRC, Baldwin was imprisoned as an anarchist. He was never rehabilitated, just got more clever/devious about it.

The ACLU now functions inside a zone that I like to call "The legitimicy of longevity". Big money for decades has given them a facade of respectability as their bastion. They now attract a cadre of anti-establishment young lawyers looking to make a name for themselves. Think of the oblique troublemakers you knew in HS...the springbutts that always wanted to argue with the teacher about every little thing.....that's your present day ACLU lawyer. Unwitting dupes of rich and powerful elitists that embrace communism and see themselves as the future commissars.
 
A pathetic rationalization then, and now; Even then the NRA had a far larger membership, and was wealthier. There was no doubt that the ACLU would have brought in more backers and membership by defending the 2nd amendment, than they'd have lost.

Good point.
 
You trouble me moondoggie, but only for the part in your breakdown of an acronym you say "NOT Libertarian". My God, I hope you don't associate what's only libertarian as what's purely American. There are lots of us patriots out here who don't even associate with any political party at all (as this is not a requirement in order to be a patriot).

The ACLU is garbage and is dangerous to America, I'll admit that much! It has to be some sort of communist front since it hasn't been heard or seen from much before the '70's That's about when the cold war was on a decline since its <ice skating and hockey popularity> yet the idea of a marxist revolution was in the plans. Any idiot with a 16 box of Crayola could color this out. Did the ACLU exist before th '70's?

Eh, who cares really?!

There's too many different types of people from different countries here now, and all have different ideas of what "freedom" really is. The World's Lost! There's really Zero Hope! And the best you can do any more is to simply let the disease of politics (RIP) take its natural course, like a bubonic plague, just ever watch out for your family, friends, and forget the rest.
 
"NOT Libertarian" or "NOT Civil Liberties Oriented"....you guys are splitting hairs over my employment of a little poetic license.

The long term goal of the ACLU is judicial tyranny...the imposition of their rigid brand of PC via unelected means. Their plan is insidious...make a small inroad, wait for folks to become accustomed to more jucicial activism, make another small inroad. Same thing we've seen with regard to RKBA all over the country for decades.

In any event, they are anarchists/communists and have zero interest in civil liberties; only in the final imposition of their agenda. Why else are their causes celebre' protecting criminals and eradicating any expression of religion from the public forum? Ever heard of them defending a person accused of a firearms law violation?

The ACLU has been around a lot longer than the 70's. Do some homework and read up on their history...it's all there.
 
The long term goal of the ACLU is judicial tyranny

met with earlier:

The ACLU is garbage and is dangerous to America

Did I stutter somewhere? I'd like to give the proper emoticon to show all's 'okeedoke', but it's just not always possible.

We should just be cautioned that the ACLU has their own lawyer on the US Supreme Court - Ruth Bador Ginsburg. She is there now, and dangerous as any gun you have in your collection! She is a far distant shout from what the US Constitutuion really means to us po' folk, hick, uni-toothed, redneck, crooked shootin', lazy, jug blowin', back yard, underground, 2nd Amendment hillbillies.
 
one thing I dont quite understand nor looked into.

Why hasnt the Republican party or gun owners attempted to create a rival group that will support the constitution the way it should be. its high time if it has not been done. if it has been done its high time it gets support
 
They have. They just don't get much press. And they tend not to be your one stop shopping solution, but instead specialize in various aspects of your civil liberties. Like FIRE for the rights of students.
 
Treason

Well this thread has calmed down, so maybe a little fire would help (no flames, however).

For those of you who don't remember, or don't wish to:

United States Constitution
Article III
Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Okay, Lemmee start a list of those who should be tried, and if convicted, should be executed, for treason:

Jane Fonda
John F. Kerry (if his visit to Paris to speak to the NV is true)

any additions, folks?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top