ACLU Versus the Second Amendment:Change the Wording

[Rugerlvr]

I'd bet that the ACLU will change their policy if D.C. v. Heller explicitly defines 2a as an individual right. They still may not take up many gun cases, but I'm quite sure they're not gonna fly in the face of Stare Decisis.

 

[Soybomb]

The ACLU is a lot of things but they are not stupid. They know perfectly well what the ammendment says. That is why it they think it has to be changed.

I think to some extent you're right but for reasons you're not considering. The ACLU doesn't currently work for or against the 2nd amendment. How would their donating membership change if they started campaigning for 2nd amendment causes? Perhaps this is the diplomatic way of alienating some of your biggest contributors.

Personally I'd like to see the ACLU work to support the 2nd amendment. As long as they don't work against it though I still like them. I like all of the bill of rights and there is no better organization protecting the other amendments.

 

[jrfoxx]

If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

First of, driving a car isnt a right, and an organization filled with lawyers like the ACLU darn well knows it, so they are full of it, and are showing me they have no intention of fighting for the 2A no matter what Heller ends up saying. Also find it interesting that they say its ok to register cars, so its ok to register guns, but I bet they'd scream bloody murder if the govt tried to register newspapers, the ability to speak outside your home, or regiter for the priveldge to exercise ANY of the rights OTHER than the RKBA.Sorry, I personally cant support, and have no respect, for a group that will knowingly try to fool the ignorant like that, and who will fight for ANY other right but the 1 they dont agree with, and on top of it, say registration of the 2A is ok, but registration/permits fo any other right are horrible.Maybe I'm wrong, and when Heller comes back saying its an individual right just like the rest, they will surpise me, and fight for us.Personally, Even if Heller goes our way, and the Govt proposed a band on EVERYTHING except .32 cal muzzleloading flintlock rifles, the ACLU STILL would not fight, and say its a reasonable restriction...oh, and it's ok to need a permit and registartion for that flinklock too.

 

[Dionysusigma]

How about this:

"Because a well regulated citizenry is vital for the security of a free Nation, the right of everyone to own and carry weaponry of any kind shall not be violated."

 

[Titan6]

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.

If this were true then how come they don't support the tenth?

In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles.

Yes, like in Iraq where they primarily use rifles, handguns and homemade explosives.

The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

So it confers a right then. The rest is up to the courts to decide. Without the help of the ACLU since it does not follow their agenda. Of course many members of the ACLU have stated publicly that there is an individual right.

 

[WayneConrad]

First of, driving a car isnt a right

Lots of people say that, mostly because they hear governments say that. It's a load of manure. There is no way on Earth that the founders would ever consider a common means of travel necessary to carry out everyday life to be anything other than a right. Please see the unenumerated rights, and the ninth amendment.

For contrast, go back 240 years, replace the word "car" with "horse" and imagine what kind of reaction you might get from Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Fisherman_48768]

If it doesn't support socialism then the ACLU doesn't believe it applies to the people.

 

[yhtomit]

WayneConrad:

Thanks for saving me the rant I was about to spend time on

Driving on public roads may bring with it certain responsibilities, but if there's a right to freedom of assembly, that can't mean there is no right to avail oneself of transport!

timothy

 

[Mr. James]

Thank you, WayneConrad,

And, if memory serves (it seldom does), didn't the registration of automobiles start as a revenue-raising measure, not a public safety issue? I thought it was to pay for the roads needed for all those 'mobiles.

 

[ArmedBear]

Personally I'd like to see the ACLU work to support the 2nd amendment. As long as they don't work against it though I still like them. I like all of the bill of rights and there is no better organization protecting the other amendments.

IJ
FIRE

The ACLU has been conspicuously absent lately in a lot of cases involving liberty. I think you're right on: it's about the donations. It's about using the courts to push a political agenda that suits the donors, as opposed to limit government power. I don't think you are correct about the ACLU's protecting the other amendments, except in cases where doing such coincides with a narrow band of political objectives.

 

[glockman19]

All one needs to do is watch George Carlin do his thingand you can see where changing the definition of a words meaning is tragic.

Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY

 

[IllHunter]

I would love to have heard those arguments!

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

I'll give 50-1 that it didn't sound anything like the Heller oral or written arguements. IF the posted illogical rant is any indication of their arguments, they are p_ _ _ poor lawyers.

 

[Kim]

I am sorry but the ACLU has an agenda that is NOT about limited government. They have hood-winked alot of people. I am not surprised. They are very good at what they do and have been working on their agenda for decades. If you have not figured that out is probably because of when you were born. You just accept their reasoning and the the consequences of their agenda cause you were born into the system they have devised so very carefully. Think outside of the box you have lived in. It is hard to do.

 

[jrfoxx]

First of, driving a car isnt a right

Lots of people say that, mostly because they hear governments say that. It's a load of manure.

I dont nessecarily disagree with thos saying driving IS a right. It's obvious that being allowed freedom to travel IS is right, and certainly in modern times, a car is almost required to do that, however, one doesnt need to be able to PERSONALLY drive the car to be able to reasonably travel IMHO.someone else could drive, one can fly, use trains, taxis, buses, etc.I admit its a tough one, and I didnt really like typing that, but it wasnt really my point. I was trying to find a way to get into the rest of what I said, and that was what came out, and I am personally on the fence about DRIVING being the right, vs TRAVEL being the right, as I know MANY others here are on the fence, as well as on either side, since it's been discuseed MANY times.For those saying the act of driving is a right, why do you then think licensing, mandatory trainging, and registration is OK for that right, but not for the RKBA, or the right to speak freely, etc? THAT's my point. Most people, and the ACLU dont believe that mandatory traing, permits, and licensing should be allowed just to exercise any other rights, so why would they say its ok for the RKBA?

Either way, I think the rest of what I said still stands.They would (as would most people ) FLIP if the govt said you needed to be registered, or have a permit just to TRAVEL (as opposed to being an actual driver.)If the govt said you need a permit to ride a bus, or for someone else to drive you somewhere, or to leave your city, state, etc, the ACLU would go NUTS, as would those of you who are saying DRIVING is a right, but having registartion and a license to do so is OK. I feel its TRAVEL thats the right, not any particular METHOD that is.Certainly most people dont think anyone who buys a plane should be allowed to just hop in and fly it anywhere, anytime withought having some training, a license etc? Thats what I meant there.

My real point was the ACLU is full of it IMHO, and are using the collective rights and allowed permitting/registration thing as a dodge to not support the 2A.My point was that No matter what Heller, or any other court decision says, the ACLU will still not support individual 2A rights for some reason they concoct.

hopefully I explained that a little better, as I wasnt really wanting to debate driving as a right, just point out the ACLU's hypocrisy is what they say is and isnt a right, and what infringments are and arent allowed.

 

[divemedic]

The car argument is flawed IMO, and here is why:

You don't need a license to BUY a car, nor do you need one to drive one on your property (a farm, for example) A license is needed to operate a car on public property. Without a license, I can own as many cars as I want and can afford, and they can have as big an engine as I want. I can even travel in my car without a license, as long as I am not actually operating it on a public road. (If I were a passenger, or if the car were being transported on a truck) I can build a race car or monster truck in my garage, and not even put a serial number on it.

If we did the same thing for guns, then I could own mortars, machine guns, and even artillery. I could buy sell or trade my own weapons to my heart's content. I could build them in my garage. The only thing I would need a license or registration for is to fire (or some may say carry) it while in public.

 

[buzz_knox]

I'll give 50-1 that it didn't sound anything like the Heller oral or written arguements. IF the posted illogical rant is any indication of their arguments, they are p_ _ _ poor lawyers.

It doesn't say much about their effectiveness as lawyers. It does say a huge amount about their intellectual dishonesty. They specifically state that they don't like what an individual right interpretation would entail, and thus they adopt a different intepretation. That's pretty much what they rail against in other cases but they are happy to do it when it suits their purposes.

 

[JasperST5]

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege of the state. You need to prove to the state that you knows traffic laws and that you can operate a vehicle accordingly. And you have to renew the license to do so. In other words, you need their permission.

The ACLU are being dishonest and unethical. The founders wrote about this subject extensively because it was of such importance to them. The fact that it is the SECOND Amendment is a good clue. It makes no sense that the framers would address a militia then use the term 'people' to mean the same thing, especially when the term 'militia' implies being armed by definition.

 

[TCB in TN]

Quote:
First of, driving a car isnt a right

Lots of people say that, mostly because they hear governments say that. It's a load of manure. There is no way on Earth that the founders would ever consider a common means of travel necessary to carry out everyday life to be anything other than a right. Please see the unenumerated rights, and the ninth amendment.

For contrast, go back 240 years, replace the word "car" with "horse" and imagine what kind of reaction you might get from Thomas Jefferson.

I have mentioned this several times before, my only beef with the FF is that they gave future generations was more credit than they should have. They assumed that people would have enough common sense to know that while NOT spelled out in the BOR that arms were also for personal defense, travel was a right, and other common sense ideas of a similar nature.

 

[JasperST5]

I thought it was all spelled out pretty well. We have enjoyed those rights for over two hundred years unless a state has imposed its' will on them. You can't blame the founders for state legislators going above and beyond the call of duty.

 

[rmarcustrucker]

About the lawyer thing you guys are right. Not fair to put them all in one bucket. I've never had anything against them (I've never needed one for a bad reason). I've just heard first and second hand about plenty of issues. But I can say worst about politicians, IRS collection agents and SOME credit collectors. Again, not myself, but I've had family members with problems with all the above.

I will endeavor in the future to not be to incensative....

 

[.cheese.]

I'm not going to get too much into this conversation other to say this:

I've interned for the ACLU twice, in 2005 and a few months ago.

In 2005, everything seemed pretty reasonable and I felt compelled to become a member afterwards.

A few months ago I got the impression that they'd gone nuts and quit after only 2 months. Things have changed.

I'm unsure whether I will renew my membership.

 

[Seekerrr]

In 1974 I was serving in Baumholder, Germany in the Army when I got myself into a bit of legal trouble. I say "got myself into trouble" because that's exactly accurate, I knew what I was doing was going to result in some kind of legal action taken against me, even if not a full-on Court Martial. It was political in nature and at the time I was the quintessential left-wing loud-mouth who couldn't see the forrest for the trees as regards America's greatness. Anyway, the ACLU indirectly provided me with a lawyer, actually two lawyers, by funding a small office in Heidelberg that served only GI's whose cases were based largely on political activities. They ended up getting me off with a general discharge and a free ticket home. Not bad considering I was facing real time in either Mannheim or Leavenworth (No, I didn't murder anyone or threaten anybody's or the Army's peace in any way, just said some derogatory things and refused some orders and distributed some material that the Army called "anti-American." That is an overblown description, but I freely admit that the material didn't make the Army look very good to current GI's ((shrug)).

So I felt I owed the ACLU a debt of gratitude and started searching for the local chapter to my area when I got home. Found it, joined it and started attending meetings within a few weeks of getting home. The prez of the chapter was a woman who had recently become prez after going back to law school in mid-life. Real nice woman who also got me out of a scrape with the law when I got picked up hitch-hiking and the car I got picked up in got pulled over a mile or so up the road and cops found some pot in it. Two guys in the car and I all went to jail that night and Charlene (the chapter prez) represented me for free and the case was dismissed just as soon as the driver got on the stand and told the judge, as he had told the cops that night, that they just picked me up down the road. So make that two debts I owed the ACLU in my young (19), rebellious life.

I stayed active with them until a major gun-control proposal came out in CA called "Prop 15." All of a sudden the ACLU was organizing nationwide to raise money and support this proposal. I guess I had heard some of them say they were in favor of gun-control before that, but it had never occurred to me that the organization that I saw as the champions of The Constitution would put its full and considerable support towards limiting access to a sport/hobby that I'd been involved with since I was 9 years old. Not to mention that it showed (to me at least) an unapologetic lack of support for any semblance of original intent inherent in The Constitution itself. It was nice while it lasted ACLU, but here's where I gots to go!

Prop 15 and the ACLU lost in that referendum, thank God, but the discussions (arguments) I had with members (friends....I thought) while trying to explain my resignation proved to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that free thought, critical thinking, even civil rights themselves, were paid only lip-service to by these folks if the issue at hand went against their collective ideology. Of course now I know that ideology for what it is, pure, unadulterated liberalism, but at the time I wasn't mature enough or well-rounded enough to discern this truism without it effecting me directly the way it did with Prop 15. It wasn't very long after that that I actually voted for (((GASP))) Ronald Reagan, and the rest as they say, is history, I am now a proud and committed conservative.

So those who would try to tell me that my concern for what the ACLU promotes is unfounded, or even mistaken, don't waste your bandwidth. My thoughts on the subject are firmly rooted in personal experience and subsequent extensive research. They were founded and faithfully supported by self-proclaimed communists in a thinly-veiled Trojan Horse plan to ruin our republic by working within its legal systems' parameters. To argue otherwise is to deny what can be easily proven as historical fact and truth. They are no more deserving of support, whether passive or aggressive, from gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders than is Sarah Brady, and it is my strong belief that those gun owners and 2A defenders who claim the ACLU have any redeeming qualities as they relate to our cause are simply unwitting soldiers hidden inside that Trojan Horse.

Take all this with however many grains of salt you wish, but if even 10% of what I accuse the ACLU of being is true, they deserve nothing but scorn from us. Defending them in any way on a gun-oriented website is an act of betrayal to the cause as far as I'm concerned.

Seekerrr