Join the ACLU.
- Thread starter devilc
- Start date
- Status
amper
Member
The trouble with this, of course, is that the ACLU is *entirely* wrong on this subject. That page is so riddled with misinformation about the purpose of weapons in a free society it hard to know even where to begin with people who hold these misguided (advocacy of the collective right theory, reasonability of guerilla resistance, which is well proven in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq), ill-informed (the U.S. v. Miller decision doesn't say what they seem to think it does, and in any case, the case was remanded and not retried), and outdated (no mention of Parker v. D.C.) positions.
And, as I said before, payment of membership dues and/or donations to the Foundation create no obligation for the ACLU to spend those monies in ways that are requested by the donor, so giving free rein to these people is futile and counterproductive.
No one with any amount of brains in their head has even suggested that the RKBA should be entirely unlimited (personal possesion of WMD has no valid purpose for the regulation of the militia, for one thing, and no valid purpose for self-defense, for another), so on this matter ("reasonable" gun control), the ACLU *appears* to have a "reasonable" stance, and even explicitly claims a "neutral stance on gun control", but this idea is clearly contradicted when you examine the rest of their points.
If the ACLU ever changes their stance on Amendment II and finally recognizes the *entire* Constitution, then, and only then, will I consider membership and/or donation. But before that happens, they must conclusively demonstrate that they will fight tooth and nail for *all* civil liberties, instead of just the ones with which they feel comfortable.
They could start by supporting Parker, et al, in Parker, et al, v. District of Columbia...
The ACLU has a completely different perspective on the Constitution, I think. They want it to be a "living document", changing with the times, to mean whatever they want it to mean. They do not care a whit as to original intent.
Their lawyers and leaders are also hard-core leftists, with an agenda. If you tend towards that perspective, maybe even most of you Libertarians, and want legal drugs, prostitution, abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc., go ahead and join. They may even convince you someday how confused you are about firearms.
Sure, they may occasionally do something good and worthwhile (I believe that the powers that be need to be occasionally reminded that you do have to carefully about stepping on peoples rights, even if the purpose is good, like national defence), but I don't think their actual goals have really changed since 1935.
This thread has degenerated into something that looks too much like the old L&P. I predict thread lock any minute...
Their lawyers and leaders are also hard-core leftists, with an agenda. If you tend towards that perspective, maybe even most of you Libertarians, and want legal drugs, prostitution, abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc., go ahead and join. They may even convince you someday how confused you are about firearms.
Sure, they may occasionally do something good and worthwhile (I believe that the powers that be need to be occasionally reminded that you do have to carefully about stepping on peoples rights, even if the purpose is good, like national defence), but I don't think their actual goals have really changed since 1935.
This thread has degenerated into something that looks too much like the old L&P. I predict thread lock any minute...
amper
Member
Why lock the thread? Other than the blanket characterizations of socialists, communists, non-Christians, leftists, and liberals, we're having an entirely reasonable discussion, aren't we? 
More seriously, I fail to see the connection between legal drugs (get your damn laws off my body), legal prostitution (get your damn laws off my body), legal abortion (get your damn laws off my body), gay marriage (get your damn laws off my body), and *illegal* firearms (oddly enough, the justification for legal weapons is also get your damn laws off my body, but in a different way).
More seriously, I fail to see the connection between legal drugs (get your damn laws off my body), legal prostitution (get your damn laws off my body), legal abortion (get your damn laws off my body), gay marriage (get your damn laws off my body), and *illegal* firearms (oddly enough, the justification for legal weapons is also get your damn laws off my body, but in a different way).
ACLU not founded in communism? Here's a start in research. There's a wealth out there showing that it was in fact founded in, and supported by, communism.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41751
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41751
Wow Ron...
Not to slam, but if I want to make an objective point to an educated audience, the page you linked is *not* on my side lol.
__________________
Stay off my side, space hippy.
Dog-Fu!
Didn't like that link? How about these:
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=268
http://deadrepublicanpresidents.blogspot.com/2005/01/aclu-and-communism.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092102.html
http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html
There are plenty more if needed.
Not to slam, but if I want to make an objective point to an educated audience, the page you linked is *not* on my side lol.
__________________
Stay off my side, space hippy.
Dog-Fu!
Didn't like that link? How about these:
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=268
http://deadrepublicanpresidents.blogspot.com/2005/01/aclu-and-communism.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092102.html
http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html
There are plenty more if needed.
mgregg85
Member
So whats wrong with supporting Muslims? I'd agree with you that I dislike that they support the KKK and others but they stand for civil rights(at least some of them) for all. Thats the only thing that I respect about the ACLU, they are brave enough to stand up and fight for at least some of the bill of rights.
As far as the evolution debate, I agree with you that the creation side should be presented but also other religious theories should also be presented including Pastafarianism.
mgregg85
Member
I got the same feeling but I think he was more like a libertarian than an anarchist.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Since the thread is on the way towards lock already, I'll just point out that since a baby in the womb has separate DNA, separate brain waves, separate finger prints, and yes , even a separate body, it has NOTHING to do with "get you damn laws of my body"
lanternlad1
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2007
- Messages
- 770
I support both the NRA and the ACLU, in full knowledge of what each group represents. The ACLU is weak in the 2nd amendment, and the NRA is weak on the rest of the amendments. The ACLU has done some good things in their time, recently such as shedding light on Bush's wiretapping program, and getting the courts to stop the FBI from issuing unconstitutional search warrants. There are a great many right wing conservatives here, but in no way does that mean all who support the 2nd are conservatives. One does not have to be such to support the Constitution.
The problem with rights is that they either work for everyone, or not at all.
The problem with rights is that they either work for everyone, or not at all.
I think it's great to have a civil, reasonable discussion, but the rules for the Activism forum are pretty clear. I surprised it isn't locked yet.
My comments about abortion, drugs, prostitution, etc. were to illustrate that you will not change my mind and I will obviously not change yours. And this is not the place to argue about it either.
Yes, I had to get my two cents in before the lock, but seriously this forum is for activism, not arguing whether the ACLU is good or bad. If your response is "I just joined, told them they need to support the second amendment" then that's fine.
If your response is like mine and just says "The ACLU sucks" then this isn't the place.
amper
Member
Oh, I'm not arguing about it, I was just trying to illustrate a point that belief in the RKBA is not necessarily incompatible with the other stances. In fact, in my belief, I can't see how they can be separated. What I didn't get is why you would think that association with others who agree with me on every point except RKBA would have any effect on my stance on that point, given that my belief on all of these issues is essentially founded on the same premise.
And, my responses in this thread were directed at the originator's post, and are meant to describe exactly why I think the original idea is a bad one. Namely, that the membership and donors of and to the ACLU have absolutely no say over the ACLU's policies. I don't think they *suck*, per se, but I am very deeply disappointed in them, and any posts I've made that don't directly answer the originator's questions illustrate the fact that I can't see joing the ACLU or donating to the Foundation based on my understanding of their inconsistent and dangerous views on Amendment II.
If I cannot control the money they get from me, and I have foreknowledge that they will use it against me, they won't get any money from me, regardless of how I feel about other issues. The RKBA is *that* important.
devilc
Member
Realistically - you are not going to draw 3,000,000 more people to the NRA.
If you could get a group like the ACLU to make some minor course corrections on the 2nd Amendment, it would be a BIG deal.
I don't think many of you are very pragmatic nor realistic about how these fights must be fought and won.
If you could get a group like the ACLU to make some minor course corrections on the 2nd Amendment, it would be a BIG deal.
I don't think many of you are very pragmatic nor realistic about how these fights must be fought and won.
amper
Member
Great, but how exactly do you propose to steer the ACLU?
I think if Parker v. DC goes well, we may see some interesting things from the ACLU.
I think if Parker v. DC goes well, we may see some interesting things from the ACLU.
jimmyraythomason
Member
The ACLU is loudly proclaiming "Congress shall make no law" while omitting "the free exercise thereof". MOST of the lawsuits that the ACLU bring against public displays of faith would be thrown out of court as frivolous if judges stuck to the letter of the law.
bogie
Member
Some of y'all just don't get it.
If the ACLU suddenly had 3 million folks voting that they needed to pay attention to that pesky 2nd amendment, well... They'd look at how much money they'd lose if they all didn't renew next year...
It's the bottom line, campers. I think that if we could actually organize a bunch of gun people (next to impossible), we could actually cause some serious paradigm shifts.
But that ain't gonna happen, because folks would rather bitch than cooperate to coordinate...
Of course, I could be proven wrong. And I'd LIKE to be proven wrong.
If the ACLU suddenly had 3 million folks voting that they needed to pay attention to that pesky 2nd amendment, well... They'd look at how much money they'd lose if they all didn't renew next year...
It's the bottom line, campers. I think that if we could actually organize a bunch of gun people (next to impossible), we could actually cause some serious paradigm shifts.
But that ain't gonna happen, because folks would rather bitch than cooperate to coordinate...
Of course, I could be proven wrong. And I'd LIKE to be proven wrong.
40SW
Member
Since this is a Firearms/RKBA forum, I would like to have a single example sited where the ACLU has supported RKBA/2nd ammendment. I have never heard or seen one.
Furthermore, The Constitution is NOT a living document to be INTERPRETED, it is a FOUNDATION to be UPHELD. The 2nd ammendment was never meant to be LIVING, nor INTERPRETED, It was meant to be UPHELD., period.
Furthermore, The Constitution is NOT a living document to be INTERPRETED, it is a FOUNDATION to be UPHELD. The 2nd ammendment was never meant to be LIVING, nor INTERPRETED, It was meant to be UPHELD., period.
Some of y'all just don't get it.
If the ACLU suddenly had 3 million folks voting that they needed to pay attention to that pesky 2nd amendment, well... They'd look at how much money they'd lose if they all didn't renew next year...
It's the bottom line, campers. I think that if we could actually organize a bunch of gun people (next to impossible), we could actually cause some serious paradigm shifts.
But that ain't gonna happen, because folks would rather bitch than cooperate to coordinate...
Of course, I could be proven wrong. And I'd LIKE to be proven wrong.
__________________
Take Back The Media,
Take back the VOTE!
www.creativeaccuracy.com
I don't believe that's always the case. Sometimes an organization becomes so powerful that it doesn't always listen to the "uneducated" members. If the governing board has an agenda it will be priority one, even if the membership doesn't agree. Even the NRA has shown some small instances of this.
If the ACLU suddenly had 3 million folks voting that they needed to pay attention to that pesky 2nd amendment, well... They'd look at how much money they'd lose if they all didn't renew next year...
It's the bottom line, campers. I think that if we could actually organize a bunch of gun people (next to impossible), we could actually cause some serious paradigm shifts.
But that ain't gonna happen, because folks would rather bitch than cooperate to coordinate...
Of course, I could be proven wrong. And I'd LIKE to be proven wrong.
__________________
Take Back The Media,
Take back the VOTE!
www.creativeaccuracy.com
I don't believe that's always the case. Sometimes an organization becomes so powerful that it doesn't always listen to the "uneducated" members. If the governing board has an agenda it will be priority one, even if the membership doesn't agree. Even the NRA has shown some small instances of this.
jimmyraythomason
Member
Amen! 40SW Amen! You have nailed it!
Citroen
Member
Congress is a perfect example!
Waste of time and money to try to change the ACLU - you might have better luck changing the UN but I would rather just send my money to an organization that actually supports all 10 of the Bill of Rights.
And I think I "get it" pretty darn well!
John
Charlotte, NC
Waste of time and money to try to change the ACLU - you might have better luck changing the UN but I would rather just send my money to an organization that actually supports all 10 of the Bill of Rights.
And I think I "get it" pretty darn well!
John
Charlotte, NC
BobMcG,
I'm sure you aren't comparing the ACLU to an Islamic fundamentalist group, but in either case, infiltration works. Infiltration works for Mexican drug cartels & Mexican police. Infiltration worked for despotic governments in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and infiltration worked for Hitler and the German's Workers Party (DAP) which he then turned into the Nazi's (NSDAP). The last case shows that a small dedicated group can take the reins of an organization and change it's course. To say otherwise is to forget your history.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13689/mexicos_drug_war.html#5
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/opinion/26sun2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/nca_vol4/1708-ps.htm
I'm sure you aren't comparing the ACLU to an Islamic fundamentalist group, but in either case, infiltration works. Infiltration works for Mexican drug cartels & Mexican police. Infiltration worked for despotic governments in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and infiltration worked for Hitler and the German's Workers Party (DAP) which he then turned into the Nazi's (NSDAP). The last case shows that a small dedicated group can take the reins of an organization and change it's course. To say otherwise is to forget your history.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13689/mexicos_drug_war.html#5
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/opinion/26sun2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/nca_vol4/1708-ps.htm
- Status