The ACLU on guns

[buzz_knox]

My point is that they advertise themselves as being proponents of civil rights in general, and always support the broadest possible interpretation of the language of the constitution. In most cases, they are always trying to expand the interpretation to include new rights and new manifestations of rights that the founders never could possibly have had in mind.

Not always. There is a school in NC with a student-led prayer during the raising of the flag, before classes began for the day. This is Constitutional as long as the school opened itself up for any group to use similarly. Teachers were attending the meeting on a purely participatory basis, not leading it. However, the school had, after being threatened with litigation before, had arranged with the local ACLU for the ACLU to determine if such activities were vaild. The ACLU opined the teachers involvement was illegal and the ACLU would sue if it happened. The teachers were then banned from attending by the school board.

Prior restraint on freedom of speech? Check.
Restrictions on freedom of assembly? Check.
ACLU setting itself up as the final arbiter on what speech is permitted? Check.

The ACLU is like any other large organization; it exists first to serve its own needs and second the desires of its constituency.

 

[Mannlicher]

all you need to know about the ACLU, is that it is an anti American group, founded by enemies of Democracy.

ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. 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."

Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Quoted in the National Federation for Decency Journal, September 1988. Page 9.

They are not the friends of gun owners.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Is the ACLU position on RTKBA a NY thing?

ACLU:
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.

Since ACLU is strongly identified with New York urban liberalism, I wonder
if the ACLU position on the right to keep and bear arms isn't a New York
cultural thing.

I have a small list of state "right to keep and bear arms" constitutional
and state bill of rights clauses which parallel the federal Second Amendment;
for instance, Tennessee supports the right of the citizens to keep and
bear arms for defense of themselves and of the state; the state
reserves the authority to regulate the public wearing of arms solely
with a view to prevent crime.

New York only has a militia clause in its state constitution (and
maintains State Guards seperate and distinct from the National Guard).
There is no right to keep and bear arms under the New York state
constitution or state bill of rights.

For that reason, I think most New Yorkers (especially New York City)
have a different mindset on the right to keep and bear arms than
those of us who live in states where the right of the citizen to
keep and bear arms is part of our state constitutions.

That may explain the ACLU's myopia on the Second Amendment as
a "New York" attitude.

And since many of our TV and movie screenwriters originate from
New York, it might explain some of the Hollyweird attitudes and
movie myths about guns.

 

[buzz_knox]

Since ACLU is strongly identified with New York urban liberalism, I wonder if the ACLU position on the right to keep and bear arms isn't a New York cultural thing.

It's based on a results oriented mentality. They don't like the results of the individual rights doctrine in this one area, so they reject it. This is the same kind of excuse that they rail against in various court cases. But, none are so blind or hypocritical as the righteously indignant.

 

[NM234]

If what you said was true about the case of the student led prayer then I completely agree that the ACLU was wrong. Now I would like to see the specifics of the case (for example weither students who did not participate were intimidated that if they had teachers that attended they may be marked differently; this is the only way I could agree with their arguement. I would be somewhat afraid that if the teachers are in attendence of the prayer that they may subconciously or even conciously (I have known some religous people who hold their beliefs to an extreme where they feel prejudiced against those who hold different beliefs; I feel such a stance is wrong) mark them differently. I could see their attendence being an issue on such a basis.)

Also just because someone who founded the ACLU was a Socialist does not mean that they hold those beliefs today. My father is a member of the ACLU and I have heard nothing of them speaking of abolishing the state in any of the material he has recieved. And even if someone is a Socialist they do have a right to that viewpoint (we are not a completely capitalistic country, things such as public school or even treating someone who is gravely ill but can not pay for their care is a socialist idea;in a completely capitalistic state there would be no economic help of any kind unless someone did so privately, also with the gap between rich and poor growing and the middle class dissapearing I do believe we need to take steps to redistribute the wealth to SOME extent (I say some because I don't believe in total financial equality, but anyone who works 40 hours a week should be able to comfortably provide for their family. We do need the garbage man, the cashier, and other jobs that are paid extremely poorly. I also believe everyone has the right to medical care, no one deserves to be suffering from disease and not recieve help; even if you use the excuse that they are lazy etc. (which I know families who have one or two members working full time who can't afford health care) we have a clause against cruel and unusual punishment. I feel not treating the sick or allowing people to starve is cruel) and there are different types of socialism, such as democratic socialism which believes people have the right to govern themselves. Socialism is an economic system, democracy is a political system.

That said I'm not a socialist, but even if I disagree with someone 99% of the time I'm willing to work with them on that 1% I do agree with them on.

 

[deltacharlie]

Here is what the ACLU is doing for American society.

Need any further help or proof, Google: "ACLU" "NAMBLA"
but not on a full stomach.


Have a nice day!

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

While you are Googling NAMBLA, you might want to Google "Charles Rust-Tierney" to see the type of scum they elevate to high positions.

The ACLU is the "politically pretty" organization. The Lawyers Guild are the Communists. There isn't a whit of difference between the two in my eyes.

 

[deltacharlie]

Allow me....

Chuck Tierney, ladies and gentlemen, give 'em a big round of applause!! Gee, must've missed his mug shot on CNN.

Oh wait, that's right, they didn't run it, how silly of me. CNN was too busy focusing it's attention on Rove & Chenney. The arrest of some high profile pedophile won't serve their common agenda

There you have it, the ACLU, working to secure and promote vile cruelty against children in America. Well, that is, as long as it is not one of their children.


Any questions?

 

[WhitetailFanatic]

the problem with the aclu is their hypocrisy. they will fight with unabated zeal and uncompromising passion to protect all the amendments in the bill of rights...cept for the 2nd amendment.

+1

 

[Chui]

"I'm a member of the modern "unorganized militia" but I can't very well serve in it if i'm not armed."

You can easily remedy this. And yes you can serve. In my view assisting your fellow man in time of dire circumstances qualifies. Yes, it helps if you are armed and trained, but all circumstances don't require arms. Sometimes assisting in construction projects or providing food, water and comfort is all that's needed. But don't delude yourself: look at the circumstances surrounding Katrina...

 

[NM234]

I've never heard of the ACLU saying people have a right to molest children, they simply state that people have a right to say they should be able to (which disgusts me, but is true; even NAMBLA has a right to free speach. Hell, you have a right to say you think murder is ok, so long as you don't make imminent threats).

 

[NM234]

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.

That is the direct quote from the ACLU. Those aren't my words. But I do agree, it is easiest to start the slippery slope of curtailing the first ammendment by stopping people from saying things %99.9 of us find disgusting.

 

[fatelk]

Fatelk: Actually, the Soviets wanted the churches done away with altogether. The ACLU just doesn't want them getting either endorsements or money from the government (and tax breaks are the equivalent of money!).

Actually, the Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of religion as well as separation of church and state. In reality, they allowed only state controlled churches, and persecuted any that dared let their religion influence their lives beyond the walls of the church building. Sound familiar?

The ACLU twists the first amendment the same way they twist the second. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It really reminds me of Animal Farm the way they twist things around. They do not care about the original intent of the US constitution. They consider it a "Living Document" that can be read differently as society changes.
The constitution spells out the methods for true change, a difficult process (as it should be). Slavery was abolished, the constitution was properly ammended. Women's voting rights, again a constitutional ammendment. Have we had ammendments regarding abortion or gay marriage? Is anyone actually ignorant enough to think that these things are in the constitution, or that the founding fathers remotely intended them to be?
If abortion or gay marriage is your cause, then start looking at a constitutional ammendment, don't read between the lines for something that's not there.

I absolutely do not intend to get into a debate about gay rights or abortion or any other issue. I'm just saying that as supporters of gun rights, I would expect most people here to support an originalist interpretation of the constitution. That is at odds with the ACLU position, as seen by their view of the 2nd ammendment.

For the record, lest I be accused of being some sort of closed minded bigot, I am a strong believer in human equality and believe all people should be treated with basic respect and dignity. We can all have different views and beliefs without hating one another. I believe that the far left's goal in not tolerance, but forced acceptance. I've seen more hatred and venom from the far left in the last few years; how is that enlightened?

You can't force someone to agree with you. Ultimately people will believe what the want to believe, despite any amount of clever argument or indisputable facts.

 

[NM234]

Even being on the left I agree that many lefties force "tolerance," which isn't really tolerance at all. I feel I'm tolerant because I believe that even, for example, a klansman has a right to his opinion so long as he does not actually carry out actions that are illegal. And I agree, we all have different beliefs and I'm happy we do:

1st: No one is always correct, by having differing opinions it creates a balance and the ability to think up new ideas.

2nd: The world would be a very boring place if we didn't

So I respect the differing opinions of people on this board. I wish no ill will on anyone with a different opinion. I have close friends whose opinions vary wildly from mine.

I just think its important that even though we have our differences we stand together to defend the 2nd ammendment.

 

[NM234]

And as far as speaking of Tierny, I remember a certain republican congressman who had to resign recently because of his advances towards the 16 year old kids who were trying to learn about government and help as aids to congressmen.

There are people that are good and bad on both sides of the spectrum.

 

[NM234]

Just to clarify when I said "And, I agree", I didn't mean with the klansman, I meant with the poster above who said we can all have different views w/o hating each other.

 

[Titan6]

I wonder why they have all those THR rules against dicussing Religion and sexual politics? This seems to be "degenerating" quick....

 

[NM234]

yeah, I do agree Titan, we've switched from the ACLU on guns to attacks and defenses on the ACLU in general. I'm sorry if I've gotten carried away its just that I am opinionated and like to talk about this sort of thing. I think one thing has led to another and we've just gotten further off topic. I think we can leave it at the ACLU not defending the 2nd Ammendment. Weither or not individual members support other stances is a topic for another place.

 

[Colt]

they merely want it seperated from the state and public institutions.

It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Freedom of religion means you don't need to shed your religion when in the public domain. You don't have to put the tenants of your religion aside when you step in the capitol building, even if you're a congressman.

No one can make you say a prayer at a public highschool. By the same token, however, the valedictorian is allowed to say a prayer or thank God during his/her graduation speech. You don't have to agree with the prayer, but you can't stop them from saying it any more than you could stop them from giving their opinion on what the future holds for the graduating class.

In point of fact, the total removal of any "mainstream" religion from the public square is actually an endorsement of Atheism or the now-popular religion of moral relativism.

 

[NM234]

I do agree that you shouldn't stop anyone from saying a prayer, but I think if you put the ten commandments on a big statue in front of the courthouse, that is favoring a certain set of beliefs over another.

 

[DualBerettas]

IT's such a riduculous theory, this collective rights...besides looking at the historical context and the fact that 'regulated' meant firearms and gear in good working order, and the founding fathers' quotes on private firearm ownership...

not to mention if you were to read that theory as:

the people can join the state and protect themselves from the government if it goes bad...this is SO flawed...

1. What happens if the state goes bad and you need to defend yourself from state tyranny...

2. If they were to attack without notice, they would certainly go to the armory before the citizens would be aware and be able to get there and get their weapons and orders...

3. during colonial times there was the unorganized militia which fought with personal arms and don't forget concord where the redcoats came to seize military muskets and rifles...

4. A collective right cannot exist without deriving itself from an individual right...it's like saying you can defend yourself as a group from the gov. but not as an individual from any tyranny, fed, state, or local....it's flawed so called 'logic'.

It's an individual right, that's it! Oh and the second amendment doesn't 'give' you a right to arms just as the first amendment doesn't 'give' you the right to free speech or to practice relgion or to practice it in a collective sense...

It's merely a guarantee and they put it with the Constitution to say, look in case your dumb and don't understand freedom we're going to SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU.

Actually, the Texas ACLU chapter recently worked with the Texas State Rifle Assoc.

I wrote the ACLU and pointed out that the NRA could help teach the ACLU about gun rights and the ACLU could help teach the NRA about other freedoms besides the first and second amendments...

The more freedom groups we can bring together, the better off we will be.

DB

 

[fatelk]

Titan6,
Though most have tried to keep their posts respectful and refrained from personal attacks, I would agree we have definitely wandered off topic. This is my last post on this thread.

 

[deltacharlie]

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.

That is the direct quote from the ACLU. Those aren't my words. But I do agree, it is easiest to start the slippery slope of curtailing the first ammendment by stopping people from saying things %99.9 of us find disgusting.

Understand, and this is no flame on you but...Why not?

The ACLU is all for going down the slippery slope of gun control and far less than 99.9% of the public disagree with gun-ownership. In fact, more of the American public agrees with gunownership than those who disagree.

And touche on pointing out the dirtbag GOP congressman from Florida, I'd forgotten about that one. However, he was just a dirty-old-man...he wasn't getting his rocks off watching the torture of children with illegal pornography. However, he was wall-to-wall on TV, where was the Tierney coverage? The absence of which speaks volumes about the media.

I also find it interesting that the ACLU is sqeamish over the U.S. torturing enemy combatants, but it's ok for NAMBLA to publish (AND ENCOURAGE) the torture of children. And there's the ACLU with their tacit support. I am not advocating the curtailing of free speech, I am advocating that they pick a better battle than that client...they're a study in hypocrisy.

Instead of leaping to NAMBLA's defense, why not just ignore them like they do RKBA issues?

I'll tell you why, they are an organization who's sole purpose is the destruction of America from the inside out. And the reason they don't defend the 2nd Amendment, is because an armed public will fight external and internal agressors.

 

[Soybomb]

all you need to know about the ACLU, is that it is an anti American group, founded by enemies of Democracy.

Why do you anti aclu guys drag this tired old horse out every time? Baldwin's been cold and in the ground for nearly as long as I've been alive, his interest in communism was in the 1920's. By the 1940's he had changed his political views, denounced communism, and communists had been purged from the ACLU. How is this relevant at all to today's ACLU? Could you show me their communist actions? This is like saying Ulysses Grant was an anti-semite, don't support the NRA!

Instead of leaping to NAMBLA's defense, why not just ignore them like they do RKBA issues?

I'll tell you why, they are an organization who's sole purpose is the destruction of America from the inside out.

Wow. Anyway the reason they leap to the defense of the craziest most disliked people possible is you don't have freedom of speech if you don't have the freedom to say horrible, despised, disgusting, things. Protecting the unliked fringe speech protects freedom of speech from the gradual erosion we've seen with the 2nd amendment. If our our lobby was so agressive and effective.

 

[Joe Demko]

ACLU defends the right of NAMBLA to talk about having sex with children. It does not and has not ever championed their "right" to have sex with children. If you do not know the difference or refuse to acknowledge it, then there is no point in trying to discuss the ACLU.