ACLU's updated stance on 2nd amendment rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL! Nobody say a thing. This policy will grow funnier and funnier over time. In a decade, it will be out of step with many court precedents, and in a century it will be positively hilarious. :D
 
I was a card-carrying member of both the NRA AND the ACLU. I stopped supporting the NRA when it tried to scuttle Heller. I'm going to stop supporting the ACLU because of this.
 
The modern ACLU is an putrid vaginal discharge of epic proportions. When the ruling came down, the were censoring any dissent on their forumns. I guess they got overworked, so they literally yanked the plug on the forumns.

the ACLU defecating on the first amendment to enforce their facist stance on the second..


btw: my IP is banned. I merely posted one question in one of their blogs: will they change theri stances to reflect the ruling, and start defending people whose civil rights are violated.
 
I will still continue to support the ACLU. As for the person who complained about them interfering with private organizations, that was wrong. They had no beef with the private organization but government support of them.

They are a private organization and are able to keep their views. They have done more for the Bill of Rights than many other groups. For example, the NRA supports candidates who hate civil liberties and other important issues yet we don't criticize them for that.
 
Here's my comment:

"Are there any other Amendments in the Bill of Rights that are “collective”?

Why would the authors of the Bill of Rights put one, and only one, “collective” right in the middle of the greatest statement of INDIVIDUAL rights ever written?

The “collective right” theory was a desperate attempt to twist reality to achive a desired outcome. It was based on a convoluted interpretation of US v Miller to make Miller cover ground it didn’t cover. It was absurd from the beginning and to cling to it now that it has been officially debunked is ludicrous.

Change your name to the American Capricious Liberals Union."
 
The ACLU's take on Heller

First the bad news... this is the official take on Heller by the ACLU:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. 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...

Now the good news... Their website is being bombed by pro Heller comments from their own members. :neener:

Here is the link:

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/
 
Frankly, any group that supports NAMBLA, regardless of all other things, I do not support.
Click to expand...
But the ACLU doesn't support them AFAIK; it only supports their RIGHT to freedom of speech. And I applaud them for doing so.

"I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -- attributed to Voltaire
 
I thought this quote was very revealing, from a member of the ACLU:

I don’t want to hear any more about the ACLU prevaricating on how they “disagree” with this individual right protected by the Bill of Rights. What I (and many other members) now want is for the ACLU to step to the forefront of protecting our Second Amendment rights so that the damned NRA will stop being the only place liberal gunowners can turn to.

Will you just get with the program? Numerous polls show ~ 75% of US voters know the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and ~65% of registered Democrats agree with that position. We need you to show some leadership and embrace our rights, not leave the Second Amendment neglected for the NRA to continue to wrap in right-wing rhetoric.

Doesn’t your sense of decency demand you treat all of our Constitutional rights equally?
Click to expand...
 
Guns must be removed from the public so the aclu’s real agenda can surface.. Remember they were founded by communists.

C
 
Remember they were founded by communists.
Click to expand...

And the United States of America was founded by slave owners.

Quit with the ad hominem attacks and lets stick to the substantive arguments.
 
The history of an organization is not an ad hominem attack, insofar as it is used to try to understand that organization.

That's not what an ad hominem attack is.

An ad hominem attack is something like "Stalin thought the earth was round!" to support the notion that it is flat. If an organization is founded with certain objectives, and they are the objectives of a committed Marxist, then that is substantive. It is not conclusive, but it's substantive.
 
Quit with the ad hominem attacks and lets stick to the substantive arguments.
Click to expand...


ad hominem argument-It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.



Where am I attacking the OP or their views, and what did I post that was incorrect..

Additionally to equate the USA's founding fathers to the lot that founded the aclu is rather low in my book..

C
 
Cool. The Supreme Court is the highest court and the last word, and they have definitively ruled that the RKBA is an individual right ... but the ACLU disagrees?

That's a great way to make your organization even more irrelevent than it already is.
 
The Supreme Court is the highest court and the last word, and they have definitively ruled that the RKBA is an individual right ... but the ACLU disagrees?

That's a great way to make your organization even more irrelevent than it already is.
Click to expand...

There are several stages of grief after suffering a tragedy, and the first one is denial. Let's see how long they'll stay in denial, and do nothing to snap them out of if. I'm telling you, it's going to get funnier and funnier as the years go by.
 
NAMBLA has the right to free speech. But, if the ACLU will stand up for NAMBLA's right to march in favor of buggering boys, but does not want to stand with us, I want no part of them. They would support NAMBLA but not us.

Ash
 
CATO will almost certainly benefit from ACLU's not coming out clearly and stating that their official policy is to consider the 2nd an individual right.

I know that they're going to get my money.
Click to expand...

Good for you. In addition to their longstanding support for gun control, there is another fundamental right which doesn't get much respect from the ACLU: the right to own (as in control and use) property. In my estimation, that is THE fundamental right, more important than firearms or speech, and the libertarians at CATO understand it. I guess that also makes it relevant that the ACLU was founded by a communist and is dominated by leftists, and America was founded by slave owners and other believers in property rights. :neener:
 
What they are saying is that the SC is the final word-- unless it goes against our viewpoint.


By the statement I have quoted, the ACLU has now identified itself as an organization who is more interested in social engineering rather than codification of rights.
Click to expand...

This is the core issue for me. They are not about protecting anybody's rights, they are about changing society to match their far left agenda.
 
They would support NAMBLA but not us.
Click to expand...
They have supported all kinds of objectionable people, but often in support of a good underlying cause. Maybe the NRA should try to get a permit to hold a rally outside Mayor Bloomberg's office. When it's denied, we go to the ACLU and say "They won't let us speak freely!"

We could have the bizarre spectacle of the ACLU defending the NRA against NY gungrabbers, while continuing to say the NRA is wrong about Heller. Maybe we could use GOA instead of NRA, just to ensure that something wacky happens. :D
 
My post on their blog:

I have always respected the ACLU and the work they do. They are a vital presence in the face of a government that seems bent on seizing as much personal liberty from its citizens as it can. Why they would choose to endorse government supremacy with respect to such a fundamental human right as self-defense to me is unfathomable. They have shown themselves to be nothing more than puppets of the wealthy left.

Neither does it make financial sense. There are many ridiculous gun laws out there just begging to be repealed in the light of Heller. Think about all the contributions that would roll in if the ACLU had announced that they will defend Second Amendment rights with the legendary vigor with which they defend the others!

I guess “power to the people” is a bit anachronistic, too.
Click to expand...
 
I have the feeling that this policy is going to get reversed.
Click to expand...

What's gives you that feeling, Lonnie? Inside info? Do you know someone on the board?

I cannot see how. ACLU has always been a front group for the hardcore Marxists. Given the founding principles of the ACLU and their objectives, why would they want the peasantry armed?

Remember what Lenin said!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
ACLU blasted on own blog
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
bogie
B
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
ACLU Second Amendment
Replies
4
Views
523
TexasRifleman
T
J
  • Locked
Heller / Individual Rights / ACLU Policy #47
Replies
20
Views
1K
Ratzinger_p38
R
A
  • Locked
MP3 of Gun Rights after Heller
Replies
1
Views
317
MGshaggy
M
A
  • Locked
Nevada ACLU supports an individualgun rights
Replies
4
Views
360
ozwyn
O
Back
Top