Earth to the ACLU...

[30 cal slob]

Time to get the white-out or the erasers.

Get to it, you have a lot of work to do!

Gun Control (3/4/2002)

Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?
BACKGROUND
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.

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

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47

 

[atblis]

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Which amendment covers cars?

In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. 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 basically "we don't like the implications of said ammendment, so we're going to ignore it"

 

[Rugerlvr]

Damn right! ACLU better change their policy, and pronto.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I really have an appreciation for what the ACLU does for the rights of people here, and what a big stick they carry with regard to what they bring to the table for defendants.
I just wish they could get their ethics in order with regard to the 2nd amendment and stop seeing it as a seperate and unequal amendment.

 

[Rugerlvr]

I would join the ACLU if they changed their stance on the 2nd.

 

[hso]

There are going to be a lot of changes coming and none of them will instantly occur.

 

[Piedmont Plinker]

I really have an appreciation for what the ACLU does for the rights of people here, and what a big stick they carry with regard to what they bring to the table for defendants.

I don't. They're racists.
I doubt they'll change their stance.

 

[chieftain]

It is interesting that the Anti Americans at the ACLU, and they are anti American, would use Miller to base their groundless argument against the individual interpretation of the the 2nd Amendment.

The only decision that even infers the collective right was fundamentally a non-decision.

Why, pray tell?

Because Miller had died before the case went to the Court. There was no opposition in the Courtroom. It was decided on only the argument and evidence from the Prosecutors, no defendant defense at all zero, none, nada!

So think about what all those 'collective' minds, or as I like to call them, Marxist minds are really saying.

Every other Supreme Court decision that discusses, but does not rule, uses the individual right.

Now, with Heller, we have the Court clearly stating an individual right.

OORAH!

Go figure.

Fred

 

[ByAnyMeans]

I don't know one way or the other what the ACLU will do but I would not join them anyway. I used to think it was simply a problem with their second ammendment issue but then their defense of NAMBLA came about. I'm all for civil liberties and I am a pretty big liberterian. I agree people have the right to do 99.9 percent of what they want to do in their privacy but this was to far. To those unfamiliar with NAMBLA it is the NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION. The ACLU has taken to court states that have taken down and barred the NAMBLA website because they promote "sexual love" betwee man and young boys as well as instructional tutorials on picking , abusing, and keepng quiet there "lovers". The ACLU did great things and still does some good but they like some other "progressive" people have lost their way. I would never support them.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I would join the ACLU if they changed their stance on the 2nd.

AND actively undertook to protect it, then in that case, me too. It will interesting to see what they do on this.

 

[matt87]

I don't know one way or the other what the ACLU will do but I would not join them anyway. I used to think it was simply a problem with their second ammendment issue but then their defense of NAMBLA came about. I'm all for civil liberties and I am a pretty big liberterian. I agree people have the right to do 99.9 percent of what they want to do in their privacy but this was to far. To those unfamiliar with NAMBLA it is the NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION. The ACLU has taken to court states that have taken down and barred the NAMBLA website because they promote "sexual love" betwee man and young boys as well as instructional tutorials on picking , abusing, and keepng quiet there "lovers". The ACLU did great things and still does some good but they like some other "progressive" people have lost their way. I would never support them.

Ever heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Yeah that's right, the right to keep and bear arms is not the only civil liberty. Certain people out there would have websites such as THR shutdown on similar grounds; after all, we discuss how to obtain, maintain and use firearms to stop physical threats, which can easily (though regrettably) result in the serious injury and/or death of "attackers".

Now I'm not saying for a moment that I want THR shut down, nor am I equating the exercision of the right to self defence to the sexual abuse of a minor, but there are people out there qho would. The same principle applies.

As the old saying goes, "I don't like what you say but I'll fight to defend your right to say it."

 

[ByAnyMeans]

matt87

There are restrictions placed on speech such as yelling fire in a movie theater. THR often removes posts that are not high road or discuss commiting illegal activites. This is not protected speech and therefore should not be allowed. You cannot advocate how to get away with committing a crime nor should you. Many things that are said do not have a direct impact on others and calling for grievous physical and emotional harm being done to them does so you then start violating their rights. If you cannot understand that then there really is nothing else to say.

 

[Big45]

I just called the local ACLU office and demanded they change their policy towards the 2nd, the girl listened and then said it's a national issue and gave me the number.

 

[SuperNaut]

I just sent the following e-mail:

In light of today's Supreme Court decision on Heller vs. D.C. I'll expect to see a change in the ACLU's second amendment policy. I have allowed my membership to lapse while awaiting this decision, and my renewal will hinge upon the modification of this policy.

BTW, here is the ACLU's online feedback form address:

http://www.aclu.org/contact/general/index.html

Please copy and paste the link into your browser and use a different message, I'd hate for any action we take to be ignored.

 

[Rugerlvr]

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not connected to service in a militia, I will expect a modification of your policy regarding this civil right. I have been a member of the ACLU before, and I will be again, AFTER you have changed your policy and support this individual freedom.

This is what I just sent them.

 

[buzz_knox]

The ACLU made a conscious (and intellecutally dishonest) decision to reject the individual interpretation long ago. Expect them to strike the reason from their website and simply refuse to take 2nd A cases rather than accept the SC's decision.

 

[Titan6]

Yeah umm, good luck with all that. We won at the courts because we had logic on our side. Try to talk logic to hardcore antis and it all goes out the window.

 

[Soybomb]

I know I'm one of those rare ACLU lovers here but I'm somewhat undecided. Obviously I'm huge 2nd amendment supporter or I wouldn't be here. But I also love the rest of the bill of rights and the ACLU is the 800 pound gorilla that protects them. In fact I think they're far more aggressive, and I believe more effective, with protecting them than the NRA is with the 2nd. I'd love to see the ACLU support the 2nd, however I also realize that much of the money it uses to aggressively defense the rest of the bill of rights comes from hardcore anti's.

Do I hope the ACLU does the right thing and supports the 2nd even if it means a significant loss of funding and effectivness? Do I hope the ACLU continues to do nothing regarding the 2nd and placates the anti's to keep taking their money and defending the rest of the bill of rights?

I believe they'll have no choice but to change their official statement, but I don't think they'll take on 2a cases.

 

[belus]

I'm on Soybomb's boat.

 

[roscoe]

me too

 

[Black Knight]

All the ACLU needs to do is change their name to LACLU (Liberal Americans' Civil Liberties Union). Now that it has officially been deemed an individual right and part of the BOR where will they stand or sit?

 

[chieftain]

Ever heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Yeah that's right, the right to keep and bear arms is not the only civil liberty. Certain people out there would have websites such as THR shutdown on similar grounds; after all, we discuss how to obtain, maintain and use firearms to stop physical threats, which can easily (though regrettably) result in the serious injury and/or death of "attackers".

I guess you mean their support of Political correct speech too? No, not free speech, controlled Politically correct speech is what they are for. 40 Years ago, some of the ACLU folks supported the White Supremest American NAZI party nut bags right to march. What have they done recently?

Now I'm not saying for a moment that I want THR shut down, nor am I equating the exercision of the right to self defence to the sexual abuse of a minor, but there are people out there qho would. The same principle applies.

Yup, these folks are pro Pedophile.

As the old saying goes, "I don't like what you say but I'll fight to defend your right to say it."

The ACLU has single handedly lead to the destruction of the American Religious culture. They invented their own version of the Bill of Rights to do it too. In this case they 'INVENTED' the concept of "separation of church and state". It sure doesn't exist in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Just like their creative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In this case they had to ignore what it in fact said to get where they wanted to be. So we ignore the constitution by inventing a basis that doesn't exist for the 1st Amendment, and ignore what the Bill of Rights in fact states, to ignore the second. We will not go into inventing rights that don't exist at all, like the right to privacy, invented to legally justify Abortion, and other abominations.

All brought to you compliments of the ACLU and their other Anti American henchmen. Yes, Anti American.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[JShirley]

The ACLU has single handedly lead to the destruction of the American Religious culture.

The forum rules you agreed to when you joined here, especially

We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR...

IOW, your perception of the "religiosity" of the United States is inappropriate for this board, and, further, is completely off-topic.

John

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.
We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".

Let's see. Does chieftain's post relate to civil liberties? Yep. He doesn't appear to have multiple user names. His post doesn't contain swearing or attacks on other members. In addition, this is a thread is not primarily about religion. But it does mention it.

Sure sounds to me like he's not violating Forum Guidelines in any way.

 

[divemedic]

In this case they 'INVENTED' the concept of "separation of church and state". It sure doesn't exist in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

It is found in the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

The SCOTUS in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 7 (1948), said that the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council violated the Establishment clause.

Because pupils were required to attend school and were released in part from this legal duty if they attended the religious classes, the Court found that the Champaign system was "beyond question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups and to spread the faith."

This case had nothing to do with the ACLU