Odd signature line

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimboKhan

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
8,178
Location
Greeley, CO
Today, I read a post by a THR member that had an odd signature line, one that I thought worthy of discussion. It said:

"Proud member of the NRA and ACLU. Two organizations every American should be a member of."

Hmm. It would seem to me that 99.9% of the time, these two organizations would be at odds on 2A issues. Further, while I can support the theoretical ideal of the ACLU, I feel that they are far to liberal in most things to be an organization that I want to be a member of. Now, let me make it clear that this is my opinion, and is not a judgement on the member who had that on his signature line, nor is it a judgement against anyone who chooses to be a member of the ACLU. It just seems to me that supporting both organizations is, if nothing else, a fairly rare occurence.
 
Agreed, the combination is an unusual one.
But there are many liberal gun owners out here, it's not as mutually exclusive as you would first consider, we do have to protect ourselves too.
It does make for problems when voting as I disagree with just about everything the Republican candidates stand for except illegal immigration and RKBA, and those two issues are very important to me presently.
But aside of election time it is a no brainer for me, I just wish there was a third party that incorporated the best of the two that operate the revolving door of control.
 
They are both liberal civil rights organizations. The ACLU needs more gun owners to join and cause change from within regarding their "collective" view of the 2A, but on the other hand the NRA often offers to trade away other (arguably more important) civil liberties to protect gun ownership (look at the "increase the penalties for gun crimes all out of proportion to the actual crime because it is politically expedient" mistake the NRA continues to push)... so both organizations have faults. Even with that they are both extremely important and beneficial.
 
I don't see it as an odd combination; I've been known to be a member of both. Neither alone provides the scope of legal efforts needed to ensure that the Constitution in its entirety is defended, so I consider it a good idea to support them both......

Ed hit the nail squarely on the head.
 
While the missions of both organizations have value, IMHO the ACLU demonstrates considerable bias even in its defense of non-2A rights. How often do they file amicus briefs or support Christians whose free exercise of religion is being infringed upon? How often do they support the free speech rights of right-wing extremists? They seem to very selective in which cases they become involved in, and - coincidentally or not - these cases overwhelmingly tend to involved leftists, liberals, criminals (the peverted and/or hardcore variety) and foreign terrorists. Does that mean that some of they accomplish is worthless? Absolutely not. However their one-sided actions have irreparably tarnished them IMHO.
 
So being a supporter of civil rights in general, rather than just some rights specifically seems inconsistant?
 
Organizations can begin well intentioned and change.

My opinion is that many organizations, the ACLU included, are begun with the best of intentions and goals. Through the years and with changes in leadership and membership, they mutate into something the founders would not have intended or appreciated. I'll not compare the ACLU to this group, but offer it as a case in point, is the Klu Klux Klan. Begun during the Reconstruction years in the south, it was an unfortunate necessity for about ten years. As the need for it went away, so did the Klan, until resurected as a bunch of hateful bigots. General Forrest didn't have skinheads in mind.
 
... there are many liberal gun owners out here,

Yeah - like six or a dozen. The same as the amount of card carrying Libertarians here.

But welcome aboard, as many of you as there are! ;)
 
I'm a member of both

I think the ACLU is mushy on 2A to avoid offending (actually educating) leftish members and contributors.
 
ACLU endorses NAMBLA

Well, let's see... The ACLU is a defender of NAMBLA - the North American Man Boy Love Association. That's right folks, the ACLU went to court in the "great" state of MA to defend the "right":barf: of grown adult males to sodomize underage boys.

Maybe I'm just a narrowminded homophobic bigot, but IMHO I don't believe that adult males have any "right" to sodomize little boys.

Any organization that would stand up for NAMBLA is owned and operated by bottomfeeding scum and should be treated accordingly.
 
Hey - some of the [quote - unquote] liberal gunowners here are probably active members of NAMBLA

That's offensive and you know it.
I take exception and would like to remind you that we are on the High Road here.

Think beyond the blinkered constraints of your prejudice and realize that someone who has a more progressive and socially responsible political stance isn't necessarily a threat, not necessarily your enemy and certainly not automatically a pedophile.

Didn't the leader of the Evangelical Church resign yesterday?
Didn't Mark Foley resign?
I wonder how liberal they were...

But you'll carry on regardless, dismissing anything left of the right wing as being communist and anti-American.
Which means should they ever run out of FoxNews flavor kool aid you'll probably prefer to die of thirst than drink from the alternative.

Sad.
 
Ed Ames put it better than I could have.

Holy crap you guys.
As you can probably tell by now, that's MY sig.

I look at it this way: The ACLU helps protect 9 of the amendments of the constitution. The NRA fills that gap. As does the JPFO and GOA (which i'm also a member of)

As far as Nambla, your accusations are untrue. the ACLU does NOT support the right for Nambla to rape little children.

ACLU said:
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, [...] would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

I support the right for people to post whatever they want on the internet, or wherever else they want, as long as in the making of that material, nobody was harmed.

I support the right for people to post instructions on making bombs, guns, and offensive and defensive tactics.

I support the right for a bunch of dirty, no-good child molestors to talk about whatever they want to on the internet, as long as they aren't touching any children. This doesn't mean I support their right to touch children. There's a fine line here. My belief in free speech covers EVERYONE, including those that I do not like, as limiting speech of people you don't like is easy.

As the old poem reads:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I will fight tooth and nail for our constitutional rights for EVERYONE, INCLUDING those people I don't like. It doesn't matter to me if I met one of these people, that i'd want to shoot them in the face; I'll still defend their rights.

Can you call yourself such a patriot?
 
ACLU is a defender of NAMBLA

The ACLU stepped in to defend the right of individuals to publish legal but unpopular material on the Internet. If you don't see how that helps gun owners you aren't paying attention. The ACLU didn't do anything at all when the same group (or members thereof) were brought to court for their actions instead of their publications.

I'll put it in a familiar context. You can write a web page about converting a gun to fire full auto, and publish that page...or sell it as a book. Should the government be able to arrest you for doing so? Many people believe that guns are bad. That you should not use them. That wanting guns is just as perverted as wanting what NAMBLA wants. If you support arresting NAMBLA people for publishing their books, you support the government arresting anti-NFA people from publishing material about guns. Is that really the precedent you want?

If you think the government should have free reign to charge NAMBLA members for anything, including 1A-protected speech, you are giving up liberty for what? Security? Not really because they'll come after you as a gun nut next. Morality? The people who attempted to block NAMBLA's 1A rights turned around a week later and brought them to court on legitimate grounds (and the NAMBLA members lost) so that doesn't wash. You are giving up liberty to support your unthinking moral outrage.

In other words, you are being a knee-jerk reactionary. Just like all those people who want to ban assault weapons whenever a public shooting occurs.

You need to wake up and realize that there are people out there trying to take away your freedoms. They are trying to take away your right to speech, to guns, to privacy in your home. They WILL take those freedoms from you, bit by bit, unless you fight them every step. And the first steps they will take won't be to outlaw granddad's shotgun... it'll be the machine gun or the scary .50 sniper rifle. It'll be against drug dealers and pederasts. I'll be against gang members carrying Ravens in their pockets. It'll be against EASY TARGETS LIKE NAMBLA.... because even if they lose, people like you will knee-jerk their way into willingly giving up their liberties simply because someone had the wisdom to try to defend them.

You need to learn that, if you want to defend firearms ownership, you must defend criminals that use guns. Why? Because if felons shouldn't own guns, maybe nobody with a criminal record should own them. If nobody with a criminal record should own them, maybe nobody with bad credit (hence a high likelihood of resorting to crime) should own them....

The NRA policy of appeasement is going to bite us all hard one day. We're going to go to the gun store, and they're going to say "oops, can't sell this to you because you have a criminal background... you were picked up by a speed camera on the way to the store..." The ACLU policy of defending the issues regardless of the people who cause those issues is the only way. The only problem with the ACLU way is that they don't have enough gun owners changing their 2A view... but then they aren't actively anti-2A either.

Wise up, people... they are coming to take your guns and you've got to educate yourself in order to put a stop to them.
 
That's right folks, the ACLU went to court in the "great" state of MA to defend the "right" of grown adult males to sodomize underage boys.
I'm pretty sure they were defending the right of anyone to speech -- including NAMBLA folks and (more painfully, as many ACLU members seem to be Jewish) NAZIs.

The argument is that the right to free speech is something everyone is entitled to.

Of course, if you've got evidence that the ACLU argued in court that men had a right to sodomy with children, I'd like to see a link or three...
 
carpediem said:
While the missions of both organizations have value, IMHO the ACLU demonstrates considerable bias even in its defense of non-2A rights. How often do they file amicus briefs or support Christians whose free exercise of religion is being infringed upon? How often do they support the free speech rights of right-wing extremists? They seem to very selective in which cases they become involved in, and - coincidentally or not - these cases overwhelmingly tend to involved leftists, liberals, criminals (the peverted and/or hardcore variety) and foreign terrorists. Does that mean that some of they accomplish is worthless? Absolutely not. However their one-sided actions have irreparably tarnished them IMHO.

From the ACLU website:

Recent ACLU involvement in religious liberty cases include:

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.


Also, remember the ACLU was working with Rush Limbaugh regarding his medical records and his drug charges.

The ACLU gets into the fray because they support the separation of church and state; and they feel that school sponsored events can amount to state sponsor of religion.
 
By it's very nature the ACLU defends unpopular causes. If they were popular, there would not be the situations of rights being infringed. Freedom in our country means defending the rights of people who you violently disagree with. It doesn't mean agreeing with them.

I personally find racists to be sickening. However I have to support constitutional protection for their speech. That doesn't mean I can't speak out against their cause.
 
While the ACLU may not support they individual right to own firearms, they certainly don't fight the individual right to own firearms.

On the 2A, the ACLU is a non-player. Howeverm, there are many many things the ACLU fights that make the life of the NRA much easier. In at least one case, the NRA and the ACLU are working together to fight the Comapaign Finance Reform Act. Frankly, I can't think of a single iinstance where the ACLU has actually opposed the gun lobby. Can you? I'd love to see a link.

Owen <= Another fairly liberal gun-owner.
 
Free speech is not some kind of liberal right. It's a right for everybody or nobody. The bill of rights is not a cafeteria menu where you pick and choose which ones you want to support, at least in my mind.

Those of you who call yourselves liberal because you have a narrow interest in homosexual or some other right. Hey, more power to you, but I think you are on the wrong side.

I am a conservative because I support ALL the rights, even the ones that make me sick to see being exercised by some. I have to work with the snotballs in my party that are trying to give away the candy store. You who support liberal candidates, on the other hand, because of your narrow parochial interests, should try to work within the conservative party to change it rather than aligning yourselves with those who want to enslave you through your vices. But hey, you do what you want to do. :)
 
The ACLU defends rights I respect by providing legal support to groups I despise. That's the easiest way to summarize it.

I might also say at the moment they are literally the necessary evil to defend most individual rights from the state.

However, they are also IMO guilty of criminal neglect of 2nd amendment rights.

So the sig file makes sense to me even if supproting the ACLU is supporting a very... controversial habit of fighting for our rights, by defending individuals I would never support.

someone tell me that makes sense :scrutiny:
 
It makes perfect sense. As long as the fringe groups are protected, we should never have to find ourselves on that fringe.

~G. Fink
 
ALFA - Armed Liberals For America!

Well, it doesn't really exist --- yet; but a few friends and I are thinking of starting it.

Yeah, we've got "dual membership": NRA/ACLU.

Got tired of having to swallow the whole "chinese menu" concept of issues. The sooner we change the package concept of these things, the more interesting politics will get.

How many of you folks vote for candidates on II issues, but really aren't thrilled with the rest of the package? I mean, suppose Chuckie announced he was supporting NYC CCW? (Yeah, well ... I know ... but it would be kinda interesting ... ?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top