The ACLU on guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do agree, Tierny should have been on the news as well. I was just pointing out there are good people that are left and right and bad people left and right. I'm sure you can find people on both sides guilty of the most despicable acts, as well as people that have done the kindest of deeds.

Also, the reason they jumped on the NAMBLA case was, as stated, it starts the slippery slope. Stating that you think peodophilia is ok is legal so long as you don't actually do it. And I agree that peodophilia is torture to children (the people at NAMBLA are so out of it they believe it to be healthy for them, which is disgusting and stupid, but they have a right to SAY it; I have a right to keep my kids the hell away from them if I ever have kids). And I DO agree the ACLU should interpret the 2nd ammendment broadly as well. But like I said, even if I disagree with someone 99% of the time I will stand with them on the 1% I do agree with (and I agree with the ACLU more than 1% of the time, I would actually put in work for them when I get my law degree (which I will hopefully have in 5 years, I currently am studying pre-law Poli. Sci.) on most things, just not anything that will hurt the 2nd ammendment; I plan on working legally to perserve that as well, even if I get paid nothing for it).
 
Curiosity???

I know this was about 5 pages ago... But I really need an answer:

LANTERNLAD or anyone who can explain this, thanks...


The problem with the Constitution is, either it works for EVERYONE, or it doesn't work at all.
Click to expand...

:confused: :scrutiny: :eek:

I'm sorry what?
 
America without the ACLU and NRA would worse than it is now.

Sure we can imagine an ideal powerful civil rights organization (lets call it, Civil Rights Inc) as good on the first amendment as Cato Institute and as good on the Second as Gun Owners of America, but we have the ACLU and the NRA.

In some regards the separation might be a good thing. Crazy marxists wouldn't send money to the Civil Rights Inc because of the gun issue, and reactionary fascist gun owners wouldn't send money because civil libertarians generally believe in rights for everyone (even scumbag hippie gay NAMBLA members) (that last bit was hyperbole before anyone accuses me of being anti-"whatever")

atek3
 
Free speech goes so far. Try yelling "FIRE" in a theater.

Defending NAMBLA shows where the ACLU is. That is all I need to know to detest them.
Click to expand...
Alright how do we apply limitations on the written word that may be used to commit a crime in the future?

There are certainly many posts on this forum that could be seen as possible precursors to the overthrow of the US government.
 
Getting past the rhetoric, re the ACLU as a NATIONAL organization, when and where, if ever, have they ever gone to court in defense of an individual gun owner, gun owners in general or gun rights.

By the way, their reference to nuclear weapons, rockets and such is pure hogwash, intended to muddy the waters, wherein their attitude toward gun rights is entirely clear. They do not support them, nor do they support individuals who happen to be gun owners, especially the law abiding type.
 
he ACLU as a NATIONAL organization, when and where, if ever, have they ever gone to court in defense of an individual gun owner, gun owners in general or gun rights.
Click to expand...
When has the NRA gone to court for my right to free speech?

It'd be great if they agreed with us on the 2nd, but as long as they're doing us no harm, isn't it good to support those that defend the rest of the bill of rights too?
 
Red Herring

Soybomb,(as friendly as possible) please keep your fish, I'm not a big fan of sea food. :p

When has the NRA gone to court for my right to free speech?
Click to expand...

Sorry, that game doesn't play on this court. The NRA, as in the National RIFLE Assoc? Not the National FREE SPEECH Assoc. Don't expect them to be there for that fight.

The American Civil Liberties Union, i.e. civil rights, FREE SPEECH. They claim it. So when they get kicked for NOT protecting the 2nd, don't complain. But don't muddy up the water with Claiming that a GUN rights org. should take care of a 1st amendment issue.
 
When has the NRA gone to court for my right to free speech?
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? The NRA led the charge (though unsuccessfully) in challenging the McCain-Fiengold campaign finance "reform" Act that limits political speech in the final weeks prior to an election.
 
Sorry, that game doesn't play on this court. The NRA, as in the National RIFLE Assoc? Not the National FREE SPEECH Assoc. Don't expect them to be there for that fight.
Click to expand...
To each his own, personally I'm not into judging either organization by their names and how accurately applied those names are, but more how well each one campaigns for freedom. If the ACLU doesn't work for gun rights but doesn't work against them while working to support the other 9 parts of the bill of rights it seems like we're cutting off our nose to spite our face if we don't support them anyway. If they start working against gun rights then I'd feel differently.
 
Soybomb
Quote:
he ACLU as a NATIONAL organization, when and where, if ever, have they ever gone to court in defense of an individual gun owner, gun owners in general or gun rights.
When has the NRA gone to court for my right to free speech?

It'd be great if they agreed with us on the 2nd, but as long as they're doing us no harm, isn't it good to support those that defend the rest of the bill of rights too?

-----------------

Your quote from my post, in my opinion, does not support the point you are trying to make. Actually, I find both the NRA, of which I'm a LIFE MEMBER, and the ACLU to be problematic. Problem with ACLU, in my opinion, is their strange selectiveness. I do not believe that one can pick and chose from amongst parts of the BOR, without weakening the entire thing.

As to your statement "they (the ACLU) are doing us no harm", think again on that.
 
As to your statement "they (the ACLU) are doing us no harm", think again on that.
Click to expand...
Show me the actual harm they've done and convince me i shouldn't be sending them money. Thats all it will take to change my tune here.
 
Soybomb, do as you freely choose. You might wish to research that organization before you offer them a single peso... No one needs to try to convince you of anything. Prove it to yourself by reading everything about them. Once you've done so follow your consciense.

Personally, I cannot see how one could call themselves an American and support that Marxist ideologied organization, but obviously I'm more learned on that organization than you are at the present.
 
The Second Amendment to the Constitution
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.
Click to expand...

According to judges in the Parker decision, the statement of general principle is preceded by a specific reason why that general principle is worthy of legal protection. This was not always done in writing past laws, and seems to have fallen out of favor as a style of writing laws today, so the rhetoric is confusing. The specific reason listed in laws in the past was not the only or the exclusive reason why the general priniciple ought to be protected, but was listed as an example of why it was worthy of legal protection. One of the reasons "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But it is not an exclusionary or limiting clause.
 
now for the first amendment

If ACLU is defending not NAMBLA but NAMBLA's right to free speech,
exactly where was ACLU when Paladin Press was pilloried over "The
Hitman" book, written originally by a single mom who was not a hit
man? Exactly how was "The Hitman" any different from any of the
memiors of Mafia killers peddled by mainstream publishers?

(Personally I think NAMBLA is easier to keep tabs on if they are
"above ground" openly saying what they are. Suppression might
drive them even more underground, making them more dangerous.)
 
Soybomb

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!
Click to expand...

There is no discussion on this matter with the running dogs of the ACLU. They will not admit that the stated, if not the actual purpose of their organization is to destroy the moral fabric of America.
 
ACLU supports and defends the free speech rights of NAMBLA, KKK
and NeoNazis, but they do not see that as supporting or defending
NAMBLA, the KKK or NeoNazis.

I hated the idea of the Nazis marching through the Jewish
neighborhood (Skokie IL but I quote from memory) and was upset
the ACLU defended that march, but they were not defending the
Nazis: in the ACLU's view they were defending the right of everyone
to freely express their beliefs.

American Communists in the 1930s were rather niave (I believe
Soviet leaders called them useful idiots). Now, some American or
some American group being communist after the 1930s took denial
or real idiocy.
 
Also I wanted to point out that some Marxist ideology has been put to use in this country (public schools, certain health care programs, etc.) we are a mixed economy (a mix of capitalism and socialism, there wouldn't be anti-trust laws, etc. w/o some communist influence). Also communism is an economic system, not a political one. Which is why there are philosophies such as democratic-socialism (where wealth is more evenly distributed but personal freedoms such as speach and religion as well as the vote is preserved)

Now I think if we switched over to complete Marxism it would work out horribly, but I if we had pure capitalism it would destroy itself as well. Like most things in life a balance works out best.

Also the Soviets weren't really even communists, they were a totalitarian state that served a few powerful dictators. They didn't distribute wealth evenly etc. They were just jerks. Now I want to clarify, I'm not a communist; but we do have a mixed economy to some degree.
 
There is no discussion on this matter with the running dogs of the ACLU. They will not admit that the stated, if not the actual purpose of their organization is to destroy the moral fabric of America.
Click to expand...
Freedom is the founding principal of the United States of America, and the ACLU has done a great deal to protect freedom. Some people don't like freedom when it offends them, whether it freedom to own guns, or freedom to say stupid things. But in my opinion, freedom is the ultimate moral law, and destroying that freedom is the best way to destroy the moral fabric of America.
 
Saying and doing are two different things, yes, on this point we can all agree. Any lowlife living in America can get his (or her) jollies off by "talking about" molesting children...no law against that. And if I want to talk about "torturing child molesters by dragging them behind my truck" ... no law against that either.

However, until (I see) the ACLU protect the 2nd Amendment with the same publicity and unified zeal that they reserve for pedophiles and neo-Nazi, they are just Hypocrites, plain and simple.

Just like cops cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce, the ACLU, that self-appointed guardian of our rights, cannot pick and choose which rights to defend without the well deserved label of hypocrites.
 
Soybomb:

While I cannot site any particular harm done us by the ACLU, as you ask, I submit that via their strange selectiveness, they have weakened the entirety of the BOR. Additionally, they have most certainly, and in general, aided and abetted the enemies of Second Amendment Rights.
 
Show me the actual harm they've done and convince me i shouldn't be sending them money. Thats all it will take to change my tune here.
Click to expand...


That's easy.

The harm is done by what political candidates they support for office.

Politics are "package deals" where a pile of ideologies are lumped together to create an attractive product for the voting public to buy.

More often than not, in my opinion, candidates supported by the ACLU are ALSO pro-gun control, thereby harming our cause.

I base this on the political reality that the ACLU has historically aligned itself with liberal candidates and those same candidates have touted their support for the ACLU as a campaigning point.

Extrapolating that liberal candidates more often than not vote for pro-gun control measures, supporting the ACLU puts money in the pockets of those who use that money to elect enemies of the 2nd Amendment.

-- John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

berettaprofessor
  • Locked
ACLU supports NRA lawsuit!
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
dh1633pm
dh1633pm
M
  • Locked
Contact ACLU about Heller Decision
Replies
17
Views
849
JohnBT
J
DeepSouth
  • Locked
New York Can’t Be Allowed to Stifle the NRA...says the ACLU
Replies
1
Views
402
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
3
  • Locked
Earth to the ACLU...
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
chieftain
C
B
  • Locked
Nevada ACLU Supports Heller and 2nd Amendment!
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Rachen
R
Back
Top