Pro-gun Texas ACLU

[longhorngunman]

The ACLU will help a gun owner, if that gun owner also likes to sodomize little children. This group is easily the most despicable organization in America if you are a traditionalist. If you are the immoral type and believe that "anything" goes than yeah, the ACLU is probably right up your ally. I hope the folks check out www.alliancedefensefund.org , this is a good group that is having great success fighting the ACLU in the courts.

 

[Gordon Fink]

That’s funny. I thought the NRA was the most despicable organization in America.

~G. Fink

 

[Igloodude]

The ACLU will help a gun owner, if that gun owner also likes to sodomize little children. This group is easily the most despicable organization in America if you are a traditionalist. If you are the immoral type and believe that "anything" goes than yeah, the ACLU is probably right up your ally. I hope the folks check out www.alliancedefensefund.org , this is a good group that is having great success fighting the ACLU in the courts.

That can't be right, the Alliance Defense Fund's website doesn't even mention the Second Amendment, that I can see.

And seeing how I disagree with most of their actual positions, and your statement that they're fighting the ACLU, you've finally convinced me that the ACLU deserves my membership money.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

And seeing how I disagree with most of their actual positions, and your statement that they're fighting the ACLU, you've finally convinced me that the ACLU deserves my membership money.

snort.

Thanks, longhorngunman!

Based upon that website, the ACLU just got 4 adults from my household, ALL gun owners.

 

[longhorngunman]

That's terrific! It's your money, do whatever the hell you want to do with it. The ADL appeals to me on issues besides gun rights.

 

[TequilaMockingbird]

Here's a liberal columnist who is a tad upset by the ACLU's support for the Texas travelling-gun law.

Roddy Stinson: State's new gun-toting law has surprise backer: ACLU

Use the feedback information below to call or e-mail me your take on Texas' new gun-toting law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To contact Roddy Stinson, call (210) 250-3155 or e-mail [email protected].

Remember, be polite.

 

[Soybomb]

The ACLU will help a gun owner, if that gun owner also likes to sodomize little children. This group is easily the most despicable organization in America if you are a traditionalist. If you are the immoral type and believe that "anything" goes than yeah, the ACLU is probably right up your ally. I hope the folks check out www.alliancedefensefund.org , this is a good group that is having great success fighting the ACLU in the courts.

I checked out a few pages and decided I couldn't help but comment on say this one http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/TraditionalFamily/Pornography.aspx

We all have our own opinions of what is moral, just, or correct, plus what is constitutionally guararanteed freedom. I think its hardest to stand up for someones rights when they're doing something you don't agree with. Sometimes thats a nazi protest when you're not a nazi, sometimes its gun ownership when you don't like guns, sometimes its someones right to view or produce pronography when you find it is against your ethics/morals/religion/whatever. While I find their attitude on the matter condescending (how nice, they want to protect people from themselves) it just really seems to me they're pushing a moral or religious agenda, not constitutional rights. Ymmv and all that.

 

[TGT]

Taco,

Sometimes you gotta go with common sence, and rely on your heart, not just the "law".

Do you think our free market system is fair and just when every conglomerate business can open up everywhere and anywhere within a mile of mom-and -pop store driving 30 years of someone's family business down the drain? No, I'm not against big business, but would it have have been so unreasonable for our goverment to grant protected territories to small stores that the Home Depot or Walmart would have easilly afforded to "buy out"?

Look at the wisdom our Government sees in Nafta and Cafta, killing our manufacturing, and our citizens jobs .

You think abortion on demand just for convenience is right? ....or starving Terry Shalvo to death in front of her parents was "legal" just because a prick judge said it so?

I have never agreed with our 1st amendment rights granting groups such as the Nazi's or KKK the right to espouse hatred against other citizens based solely on color or creed. If you can't espouse the violent overthrow of our nation, then why is it right to verbally promote the genocide of a race? Who are we kidding... isn't the "final solution" the ultimate goal of these hate groups? And you think that's just fine and dandy, and protected under free speech??

You go ahead. Hold your papers, your documents, or your manifestos firm, and whatever else help you stand firm with the ACLU.
They must be a great organization....after all they do everything according to the letter of the law.

 

[patentmike]

So this is "neutral" on gun control?

"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

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."


U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles." [emphasis added]

Take a good look at that "no principled way" argument. If they applied it to every issue, they'd be out of business, as in: "Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to marry underage sheep, there is no way to oppose reasonable restrictions on marriage."

Any organization that thinks Kennedy is right 86% is highly suspect.

http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard&congress=108&location=S&lcmd=prev&lcmd_cf=

I'll stick with the NRA and ACLJ http://www.aclj.org even though the ACLU would oppose (i.e. not "tolerate") my appointment to public office for holding such outlandish views.

 

[beerslurpy]

To contact Roddy Stinson, call (210) 250-3155 or e-mail [email protected].

Remember, be polite.

I figured this was better than appealing to authority by quoting jefferson or cesare beccorra, who is probably a tad obscure these days.

The right to self defense is one of the most fundamental rights any human being has. Disarming otherwise law-abiding people infringes upon that right. On the other hand, you may worry "what if criminals begin to conceal weapons on their bodies whilst traveling?" However, remember that criminals already conceal weapons on their person in violation of the law, usually while commiting crimes that are far more serious than misdemeanor concealed weapon possession.

Any person can conceal a small weapon like a handgun on their body. The real reason concealed carry laws are needed is because after defending oneself, the law-abiding citizen waits around for the cops to arrive, so he can justify his actions. The criminal, thinking himself clever, will use his weapon and then attempt to flee the scene. For the law-abiding citizen, the legality of the weapon is important because he only intends to use it in socially appropriate ways. For the criminal, the legality of the weapon is unimportant because he considers himself above the law so long as he can escape capture.

Remember that the laws dont control the criminal, they control the law-abiding. When the laws make things easy for the criminal and hard for the law-abiding, they are bad laws. When they make things easy and simple for the law-abiding and dangerous for the criminal, they are better laws.

Make sense?

-jim

 

[Igloodude]

I have never agreed with our 1st amendment rights granting groups such as the Nazi's or KKK the right to espouse hatred against other citizens based solely on color or creed. If you can't espouse the violent overthrow of our nation, then why is it right to verbally promote the genocide of a race? Who are we kidding... isn't the "final solution" the ultimate goal of these hate groups? And you think that's just fine and dandy, and protected under free speech??

I envy you, in a way. You at least understand the mindset of the anti-gun folks that understand the 2nd amendment, but don't think it is relevant any more. In fact, you are probably closer to the average ACLU member in that way than I am, but you'd ignore the 1st where they ignore the 2nd.

 

[JN01]

The ACLU is interested in promoting a extreme left agenda and will never step up to defend anyone or anything that stands in the way of that agenda. Perhaps some individual members may deviate from that, but as an organization they will never have a policy to:

Defend 2nd Amendment or self-defense rights;

Defend free speech rights of abortion protesters, fight against leftist college speech codes; (You could argue that by defending the war protester, they are defending everyones 1st Amendment rights, but that is an incidental result of defending their views. Also they can defend crack-pots like skinheads because nobody takes them seriously anyway. Mainstream views they don't agree with they will never directly defend)

Represent people screwed by affirmative action quotas;

Stand for parental rights to be notified prior to their children going through certain elective surgical procedures (abortion) or any matter involving sexual activity.

Suggesting that right-wing and/or religious people try to force their morals on others but left-wing wackos like the ACLU don't is laughable. The difference is that the ACLU has been much more effective by using the courts to do so.

 

[TequilaMockingbird]

Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (4/29/2005)

ACLU defends students against PC speech codes

 

[ElTacoGrande]

Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (4/29/2005)

ACLU defends students against PC speech codes

Good links, Senor. That is what the ACLU is all about. One effect of that is that everyone knows, "if I'm being deprived of my 1st amend rights, there's somenoe I can call." They work for people all over the spectrum, including the fringes and everyone in between.

They are mainly focused on the 1st amend and some criminal process things. If they would take up the 2nd with the same ferocity that they apply to the 1st, this discussion forum would be a boring place because there wouldn't be anything to complain about.

I'm enthusiastic about that quote from the Texas ACLU. Maybe I'll join here in CA and see if I can influence it from the outside.

I read a report written by Massad Ayoub about a big national gun rights conf. last year where the ACLU sent a rep. I think that the recent vote in Brazil shows that the the NRA (et al) have achieved an amazing thing: people around the world have woken up to the idea that gun ownership is a right.

No coincidence, it's an albatross around the neck of the Dems who continue to bite it on national elections as long as they support gun control.

 

[AZRickD]

I sent this over to Alan Korwin of http://www.gunlaws.com who is a writer and ACLU member

He got into contact with some Texas friends:

Alice,
Did the ACLU help pass the car-carry "traveler" law?

Alan.

---------------------------------
--Alice responds--

Now your subject line says "helps" write pro-carry law and that's absolutely not true. However, the Texas ACLU testified for SB 501 during the 2003 session, to stop city and county government from posting PC 30.06 signs (criminal trespass by a CHL) and their testimony was very powerful and persuasive.

Did they work the bill? No... the NRA lobbyist and I worked the bill. They simply gave supportive testimony on HB 823 as they did during the previous session on SB 501.

And why do you ask?

--Alan responds--

Alice,

Some AZ activists looking at ACLU locally were wondering about rumored TX ACLU activity, I offered to ask around. I believe your description above helps clarify things. Thanks.

 

[NineseveN]

Good to see the ACLU doing something on the 2A, but I suspect that if they made this a trend, they'd lose a lot of their funding, most of which certainly comes from liberal sources, which is the tail that wags their dog on the 2A. The Conservatives have spent so much time against them that they would undoubtedly refrain from pitching in to pick up the funding slack. I wish it weren't so as the ACLU knows how to get things done.

 

[TequilaMockingbird]

I don't need the ACLU to rush into battle to start defending the 2nd Amendment. I'd be happy just to see them embrace the view of Professor of Constitutional Law Lawrence Tribe, who notes, "The people's 'right' to be armed cannot be trumped by the [Second] Amendment's preamble." Having examined the historical evidence for himself, Tribe now reluctantly admits the Amendment guarantees "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."

And then there's Professor of Law at Yale University, Akhil Reed Amar, whose politics can fairly be described as a bit leftish.

I think over the past few decades, we've been winning the argument, and it's having an effect on liberals.

Check out the discussion of gun rights at TalkLeft.

Can you imagine if the ACLU adjusted it's take on the Second Amendment to be more in line with Tribe and Reed? That would be such a coup!

 

[JN01]

Re-reading my earlier post, I overgeneralized when I said the ACLU will "never" defend certain things. I will concede that on occasion they will step up for a right-winger (such as Limbaugh and his medical records). I still stand by the main thrust of my contention, however, that they have a left wing agenda and work, for the most part, to further that agenda.

Theoretically, their policy may be to support all free speech, but in practice it seems to be a rarity for them to litigate on behalf of those who aren't of a left wing political persuasion. They claim college speech codes are wrong, but how many schools have they sued for having such a thing? They will try to turn the law and common sense on their heads to prevent evidence seized from some scumbag from being used against him, but did they join the NRA and SAF against the illegal seizure of citizens property in New Orleans? When prosecutors have tried to use the RICO statutes to go after abortion protesters, did the ACLU complain about extreme tactics being used? When the Clintons unlawfully ended up in possession of hundreds of FBI files on Republicans, where was the outcry from the ACLU?

Unless they start putting their money where there mouth is, their claim that they defend everyone's civil rights equally is just empty rhetoric to soften their image, no different than John Kerry's supposed support of the 2nd Amendment during his presidential campaign