I just joined the ACLU.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh and here's another one. Man frisked because of anonymous hearsay. All they found was a (illegally carried) handgun.

ACLU did what? Yep filed an amicus brief on his behalf. Damn gun haters!


http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/22468lgl20000119.html?ht=firearm firearm


Now can anyone find a similar amicus brief where they sided AGAINST a gun owner who was arrested for having a gun?

I found this phrase straight from the brief quite supportive "C. Fourth Amendment Interest Balancing Does Not Support A "Firearms Exception" To The Reasonable Suspicion Requirement"

So not only does the ACLU NOT want to grab your guns but they also don't want the fact that you have them to be carte blanche for the cops to search you.

Bastards!

Anybody disagree with this.....?

"A "firearms exception" to the reasonable suspicion requirement is both legally and factually indefensible. First, the abstract interest in preventing dangerous firearm possession cannot offset the concrete intrusions caused by a stop and frisk. Second, and most important, enduring constitutional liberties may not be suspended or diluted on the basis of changes in crime rates or firearm use. Third, current rates of violent crime and firearm use belie claims of an escalating public safety crisis. Finally, a "firearms exception" to the "reasonable suspicion exception" to the textual probable cause norm is inconsistent with Terry and its progeny, and can only lead to the evisceration of a vital Fourth Amendment safeguard-the individualized suspicion demand"
 
Lupinus said:
This is why I wish the NRA would get its butt in high gear....no pun intended to the spanking article

Aw shucks I didn't even SEE the pun of "near the bottom" in my own post either! :rolleyes:

Good catch Lupinus
 
What I truly wonder about is this, how can someone who claims to be pro gun, support the ACLU or the Democratic party? Yes the ACLU has done some good and yes there are some pro gun Democrats, also there are some dumb and stupid things that the Republicans and NRA have done. However as a whole Democrats and the aclu are anti-gun, know matter how you look at it they are anti-gun. As a whole, Repblicans are pro gun.

How can you belong to a group where 99% of the members want your ablility to own a gun to be dependent upon weather or not the government thinks you need a gun or that type of gun and more then a few, just do not want you to own a gun.
 
The guns appear to be incidental to those cases. They aren't protecting our 2nd amendment rights except indirectly.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an accurate reflection of thier veiw of the constitution then there is no way I could support them.
 
Last edited:
ozarkhillbilly said:
What I truly wonder about is this, how can someone who claims to be pro gun, support the ACLU or the Democratic party? Yes the ACLU has done some good and yes there are some pro gun Democrats, also there are some dumb and stupid things that the Republicans and NRA have done. However as a whole Democrats and the aclu are anti-gun, know matter how you look at it they are anti-gun. As a whole, Repblicans are pro gun.

How can you belong to a group where 99% of the members want your ablility to own a gun to be dependent upon weather or not the government thinks you need a gun or that type of gun and more then a few, just do not want you to own a gun.

That's why I'm a member of the NRA. And as long as the ACLU doesn't actively fight to take away my guns (can anyone provide proof to the contrary), or the NRA doesn't fight to take away my civil liberties, I'll continue to consider both groups necessary to maintain my personal freedom.

I apologize for my previous outburst. It's just very frustrating to hear so much baseless antagonism from a forum whose membership I have a great deal of respect for.
 
GoRon said:
The guns appear to be incidental to those cases. They aren't protecting our 2nd amendment rights except indirectly.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an accurate reflection of thier veiw of the constitution then there is no way I could support them.

All of which would be meaningful if you could cite a similar case where the ACLU took a stand AGAINST a gun owner. I suspect you cannot do this. Because RKBA is incidental to the ACLU's mision of course no case is going to make it a central issue for them, why should it be? Should the NRA take a major stance in a gay rights case? Should the NAACP make a major push for child labor laws?

The fact is the ACLU is neutral to slightly positive for gun ownership. I didn't look for hours but I can't find one single case where they took a stand against gun ownership. I can find a half dozen or so where, coincidental or not, they took a stand FOR it. Since it's not their mission to be for gun rights, whether we think it should be or not, this is clearly an indication they are not enemies, and may be friends from time to time.

The antagonism towards the ACLU here is almost entirely due to knee-jerk right-wing politics and is not based in reality whatsoever. I will wait patiently for one single instance where the ACLU filed a brief antagonistic towards a gun owner BECAUSE the person was a gun owner. I don't think it can be found. I spent less than a minute finding a cite for where they supported a gun owner when the possession of a gun was germane to the case. Find me the opposite or I can only assume you are basing argumenst on subjective paranoia not evidence.
 
dmallind said:
The antagonism towards the ACLU here is almost entirely due to knee-jerk right-wing politics and is not based in reality whatsoever.
Wait a sec... stopped the knee from jerking... ah, now I can write.

If you vote guns...single issue, maybe the ACLU is a good for you. If you are content to wait and find out... In the meantime on the other issues they are a "secular progressive" (used to be called commies... don't want to get Maned's panties in a bunch) slime dedicated, among other things, to freeing terrorists.
 
The antagonism towards the ACLU here is almost entirely due to knee-jerk right-wing politics and is not based in reality whatsoever.

After years of watching them in action and seeing which battles they choose to fight many have a visceral reaction against them. It is a cumulative effect over time.

Many if not most here are originalist or strict constructionists when it comes to the constitution. The ACLU appears to be more of a living document type organization.

Don't listen to me though, as a right winger I don't dwell in reality and am only capable of knee jerk reactions.:rolleyes:
 
The fact is the ACLU is neutral to slightly positive for gun ownership. I didn't look for hours but I can't find one single case where they took a stand against gun ownership. I can find a half dozen or so where, coincidental or not, they took a stand FOR it. Since it's not their mission to be for gun rights, whether we think it should be or not, this is clearly an indication they are not enemies, and may be friends from time to time.

The antagonism towards the ACLU here is almost entirely due to knee-jerk right-wing politics and is not based in reality whatsoever. I will wait patiently for one single instance where the ACLU filed a brief antagonistic towards a gun owner BECAUSE the person was a gun owner. I don't think it can be found. I spent less than a minute finding a cite for where they supported a gun owner when the possession of a gun was germane to the case. Find me the opposite or I can only assume you are basing argumenst on subjective paranoia not evidence.

So, the ACLU has AT BEST a weak stance on guns. And on almost everything else I feel strongly about (the death penalty, Christianity, ad naseum) I usually find the ACLU on the opposite side from my own position. Neither of which is much incentive to support the ACLU.

If I want to support gun ownership, I'm sure I could find someone with a stronger stance on guns than the ACLU. And if I wanted to support anything else I believe in, I'm sure I could find someone I actually agree with.
 
"We could join the aclu so that we could change it" What crock. The leadership of many groups are simply emboldened by numbers of members that they can point to. They don't present the member's views, they present their own. Witness the President of the US. Witness the aarp. They are simply power brokers, promising enough support to members or voters to get power. Then they do as they please. aclu is no different, and the commie leaders could be less interested if a group of members disagreed. The party line would never mention dissenters.:cuss: :cuss:
 
LBTRS said:
Sorry to hear this, another member in their ranks to use against us.

Well, even though I'm not necessarily a fan of the ACLU, I fail to see how it is working against us. I'm assuing "us" means "gun owners."
 
Live Free Or Die said:
Well, even though I'm not necessarily a fan of the ACLU, I fail to see how it is working against us. I'm assuing "us" means "gun owners."

It's all numbers, the more members they have the more they can accomplish. The NRA is no different in this regard.
 
ACLU defends NAMBLA

defending the indefensible.
I saw a lawyer for NAMBLA being interviewed on TV & she was asked "when can a child consent to sex?" her answer!!! "when he can say no"

I was saying "yes & no" at 2 years old. imo if you send $ to ACLU you are in favor of raping children.
 
Boy Scouts, no , nambla, yes...thanks ACLU (not)

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

No Boy Scouts
The ACLU defends NAMBLA.



An old friend of mine once said this about the American Civil Liberties Union: "They're a bunch of whale-saving, criminal-loving pinkos — and thank God for them."




This remark nicely summarizes the ambivalence with which many people regard the ACLU. Few organizations dance closer to the very edge of the loony-Left precipice than it does. There seems to be no thug too hardened nor any cause too exotic for the ACLU to champion. At the same time, if America ever were unlucky enough to face a president who decided to remain in the Oval Office past her expiration date, the ACLU would battle her and her junta with every sharp courtroom argument, pointed legal filing, and well-aimed briefcase it could muster.

That said, the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.

The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.

Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.

So why blame NAMBLA? Is it any more responsible for this atrocity than is Vintage Books, the publisher of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita? Imagine that Jaynes and Sicari had read that 1955 novel about a middle-aged intellectual's affair with a 12-year-old girl. What if these two men found an equally young female who they abused and killed, just as they murdered Jeffrey Curley in real life? Putting aside the fact that Lolita is a work of fiction, would Vintage Books face civil justice?

Probably not, nor would NAMBLA if it limited its output to fictional depictions of "man-boy love." It is difficult to pin imaginary crimes on actual criminals who turn make-believe into mayhem.

Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way.

As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering. "According to lawyers familiar with [NAMBLA's] website," O'Reilly explained, "it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."

NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."

Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."

"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.

Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.

The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process.

Since 1915, the Boy Scouts have managed land within San Diego's Balboa Park. It has built a swimming pool, a 600-seat amphitheater, and a camping facility that accommodates 300. Camp Balboa serves some 12,000 Boy Scouts annually through daylong events and weekend sleepovers. The Scouts' tie to this land is a 50-year lease offered by the San Diego City Council and signed in 1957. In exchange for their stewardship — including private investment for maintenance and development — the Scouts hand the city an annual lease payment of $1.00.

This arrangement is too much for the ACLU to swallow. It sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization and thus should be dislodged from the facility. Never mind that the Scouts did not bar other groups from using the park. In fact, according to Hans Zeiger, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who has written about this controversy, Balboa Park hosted last summer's San Diego Gay Pride Festival.

Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones deemed the Boy Scouts a religious organization last July and declared that their involvement with Balboa Park violated the separation of church and state. The ACLU used this ruling to secure a settlement wherein the City of San Diego cancelled the Scouts' lease on the park, even though it did not expire until 2007 and, in fact, was extended in 2001 for 25 years. The ACLU also scored $950,000 in attorneys fees and court costs, thus fleecing taxpayers and deepening its pockets.

San Diego's Boy Scouts are appealing Judge Jones' ruling. A federal judge someday may decide whether or not the Scouts' good deeds will go unpunished.

The ACLU's supporters should contemplate where this organization has placed itself vis-à-vis NAMBLA and the Boy Scouts. The ACLU seemingly believes that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how odious his case. Perhaps, although it would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.

Today's ACLU makes one wish it would find some whales to save.

* * *
 
LBTRS said:
It's all numbers, the more members they have the more they can accomplish. The NRA is no different in this regard.

My point was: how is the ACLU working against gun owners? I understand that a larger (paying) membership allows the organization to do more stuff, but I'm questioning whether the ACLU is doing anything to harm gun owners. Not standing strong for gun rights is not the same as working against gun rights.
 
The ACLU is doing a heck of a lot better job standing up for the Fourth Amendment than the Republicans are.

Yes, they are very weak on the Second Amendment, and they only support about 3/4 of the First. But without the ACLU, the Patriot-Act types would be a lot further along in their quest to make the Fourth Amendment null and void.

I personally think the ACLU does need more libertarian-leaning members, to hold the leadership's feet to the fire and remind them the organization exists to protect civil liberties, not to support a statist model of government. Sort of like gun owners had to do to the NRA in the late '60s/early '70s.
 
The basic precept of the ACLU is a worthy one, at least on paper. However, if you truly dig into the establishment, organisation, and goals of the ACLU, you will find some strong socialist or communist leanings.That being said, I have little or no use for the ACLU. They violate the laws of morality. They violate the WILL of the people. They are against God and any other deity. All in all, they misinterpret the Constitution, much against our forefathers wishes. (Read the Federalist Papers for amplifying information, they're well worth the time)

Personally, I have contacted the MN ACLU twice, both times being rejected by them. Disappointing at best. There are several things going on with property rights throughout the US, but the ACLU is conspicuously silent. Another thing, happening in MN is the fact that ANY police officer can pull up behind your vehicle while travelling down the highway and for NO REASON whatsoever, they can run someone's plates. Personally, I consider this a wanton violation of one's 4th Amendment rights. Once again, the ACLU declined to pursue the issue.

I just don't see the ACLU looking out for anybody except the criminals, pedophiles, and the sexual deviants. If it doesn't make headlines, if it doesn't fit their agenda, whatever that could possibly be.

One of my online friends has a blog addressing the ACLU, you can find it here: http://journals.aol.com/rawriter/Rawsmusings/entries/406
 
Live Free Or Die said:
My point was: how is the ACLU working against gun owners? I understand that a larger (paying) membership allows the organization to do more stuff, but I'm questioning whether the ACLU is doing anything to harm gun owners. Not standing strong for gun rights is not the same as working against gun rights.

"The friend of my enemy is my enemy"

Just take a look at a list of members/supporters and all will become clear.

LBTRS
 
LBTRS said:
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy"

Just take a look at a list of members/supporters and all will become clear.

You're not convincing me that the ACLU is working against gun owners. It doesn't even look like you're trying to convince me. :)
 
Live Free Or Die said:
You're not convincing me that the ACLU is working against gun owners. It doesn't even look like you're trying to convince me. :)

"gun owners" were your words not mine. Also, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just stating my opinion that I do not feel that the ACLU shares the same agenda as the majority of those that frequent this forum ("us").

LBTRS
 
LBTRS said:
"gun owners" were your words not mine. Also, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just stating my opinion that I do not feel that the ACLU shares the same agenda as the majority of those that frequent this forum ("us").

You could have saved us both some time by just stating that you didn't mean gun owners when I first used those words. However, if you had said that that the ACLU was working against things that the majority of THR'ers stood for, I'm not sure I'd believe that either.

I've only been on these forums a short while, but I've seen a wide variety of viewpoints here on all sorts of issues. About the only thing I think most of us definitely have in common is that we're gun owners, or intend to be at some point.
 
The ACLU often defends the dregs of society. As long as it succeeds, I will hopefully never find myself included among said dregs.

Much emotional invective has been directed against the ACLU in this thread, and much actual evidence has been cited in contrast. Personally, I’ll choose reason and knowledge over fear and ignorance every time.

~G. Fink
 
As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

Change that to:

As ACLU of Maryland Legal Director John Lawyer sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor GOA/NRA/2AF's views, holding the organization(s) responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

:scrutiny:
 
The NRA/GOA/SAF publish materials that in itself can be taken and possibly used in completely legal activities.

There is no case where child molestation techniques can be used legally in any state of the union. That's the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top