The aclu is coming!

[redneckdan]

One of the student organizations on campus is hosting an even on sept 17th whereby the michigan aclu is coming to talk about how the .gov is encroaching on our civil liberties. Being the maverick college student that I am, I want to spank them a mite during question and answer time after the presentation. So far my angle is: The ACLU's current stance is that the 2nd amendment is a collective right even though 'the right of the people..shall not be infringed' clearly applies to individuals just as the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments mention 'people ' in a way applicible to individuals...not just society as a whole. Anyone else have anymore advice? I addressing this issue at said meeting is probably going to be like arguing with a jackass (the animal kind) but I might as well give it a shot and try out all those rhetorical strategies I'm learning in my gen ed humanities classes.

 

[Picard]

You should mention that now the Supreme Court has clearly and explicitly stated that it is an individual right, why is the ACLU disagreeing?
That could be your punch line.

 

[stampsm]

ACLU, protecting the rights of the few by infringing on the rights of the many since 1920.

 

[RM]

Yes, and the ACLU in one state (I forgot which one) has come out in support of the Supreme Court Decision.

 

[VegasOPM]

The question that I keep asking them is "How do you decide which Civili Liberties are important?" and let them answer like they always do "We believe that ALL civili liberties are important..." That is when you start asking about the individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are guaranteed exclusively by the 2nd Amendment.

Eventually they will stop looking in your part of the room...

 

[bcp]

Second Amendment

ACLU? NOT A CLU.

 

[ErikS]

Read up on the Heller decision.

ACLU is bound to come back and tell you that Heller was wrong, and that the SC made a mistake that went against ever court decision for as long as can be remembered.

That's when you counter with that every SC decision ever has said it's an individual right, and every decision that says it's a collective right has been lower court decision, and all of them are based on a total misinterpretation of the 1938 Miller decision.
Before 1938, it was totally clear in all legal texts that it was an individual right, and the last decision the SC had on the matter was Miller in 1938. Miller isn't much of foundation to claim otherwise, but that's all the antigunners have, except for lower court decisions and polititicians making laws that have been unconstitutional but never been challenged in the SC.

 

[retgarr]

Campus activism isn't just for liberals anymore.

 

[LB7_Driver]

There is no such thing as a collective right.

Such a right would be held & exercised by the government, and governments have no rights. Government has only power and authority, as allowed by the people who delegate that power & authority.

This concept and associated verbiage is repeated throughout the Constitution.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yes, and the ACLU in one state (I forgot which one) has come out in support of the Supreme Court Decision.

The Texas ACLU has been pro gun for a long time now, even getting involved in some lawsuits down in Houston around concealed carry.

But, from what I know of it, they are not really connected to the national organization by anything other than name.

 

[average_shooter]

ACLU is bound to come back and tell you that Heller was wrong, and that the SC made a mistake that went against ever court decision for as long as can be remembered.

Yeah, pretty much:

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Emphasis added. Link to page here:
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

 

[Grump]

I recommend playing a bit of hide-the-ball by starting with the "which rights" question above, asking about the propriety of .gov keeping a database of all the books you check out of the library, and then asking if the ACLU would oppose laws putting our purchases at hardware stores and camping outfitters in a central database.

THEN ask about the gun stuff.

But start by making it clear that you have a short series of questions. Resist the temptation to make the question a statement of policy more than a short question.

Then hoist 'em on their own petard. Politely.

 

[ErikS]

Exactly, they use the Miller decision as the foundation.

That's why you need to be prepared for it, and read up on Heller. The Heller decision discusses the Miller decision, and picks it to pieces. Read up on it, so you can take them to task on Miller too.
And then ask them what other decision they have except Miller, which is a really bad decision to use. They dont have any, because that's the only SC decision that's even come close to their view.

My bet is that if you ask them about it, they wont even know what Miller was about.

So, here's a short synopsis of Miller:
The case was the government filing a brief *unopposed*, claiming that “weapons which are commonly used by criminals,” such as sawed-off shotguns, are not protected. The court only ruled on the governments view, it had no opposing side making its case.

From the Heller opinion:

As for the text of the Court’s opinion itself, that discusses none of the history of the Second Amendment. It assumes from the prologue that the Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307 U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute), and then reviews some historical materials dealing with the nature of the militia, and in particular with the nature of the arms their members were expected to possess, id., at 178–182. Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case.

So maybe it would be an idea to ask the ACLU how they can claim the Miller decision talks about a collective right, because it doesn't mention it at all. It only talks about what kind of weapons might be allowed.

 

[clarence222]

If I remeber correctly the Nevada ACLu branch came in favor of the Second Ammendment

 

[GigaBuist]

If I remeber correctly the Nevada ACLu branch came in favor of the Second Ammendment

Yep.

If I were you I'd just ask them, politely, if the Michigan chapter, like the Nevada chapter, takes any issue with the national organization's stance on the 2nd amendment only insuring a collective right.

If you get an answer from them I'd love to hear it!

 

[Loomis]

This is something very important to me and it makes a big difference in how one views government, the constitution, and rights of the people...


We are born with our rights. our rights pre-existed The US government, the US constitution, and even pre-existed all forms of government and written language. The fact that we are human beings is where our rights came from. This is what the phrase "endowed by our creator" means. You don't have to believe in god to make sense of that phrase. You only have to recognize that a human being's rights are too big for a government or a human being to authorize or grant to another human being.

The US constitution never was intended as a blueprint or guide book to grant or guarantee anyone their rights. The constitution was meant as a set of rules to prevent government from ever establishing it's own rights. The purpose of the constitution was to define and establish the chains that bind GOVERNMENT into submissive servility to YOU and ME.

Your rights and my rights are bigger than the constitution. That piece of paper is for the purpose of presenting fair warning before whacking uncle sam everytime he gets out of line. It is the equivalent of the peoples' posted sign that says "warning, trespassers will be shot on sight". Just because a posted sign says "warning, trespassers will be shot on sight", DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONLY TRESSPASSERS WILL BE SHOT AND ALL OTHER CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS FREE TO PASS.

The constitution is not a G-DAMN permission slip to show to big brother every time we ask him to please allow us one of our rights. We don't ask big brother jack sh1t. He is our sevant. And if he ever forgets it, the constitution has been posted as a warning to HIM that he will be shot on sight.

Do you recognize and comprehend the difference? Do you see how differently the constitution is interpreted when understanding this CORRECT point of view I just laid out?

 

[Kentak]

I applaud your wanting to hold their feet to the fire for a selective support of constitutional rights, but keep in mind you're not going to win any points in a debate with someone who knows constitutional law inside and out. They've heard all the interpretations and arguments before.

Besides, that issue is a moot point. Why don't you ask, "Now that SCOTUS has ruled that RKBA is an individual right, is the ACLU going to support and defend that right against government infringement as forcefully and enthusiastically as the others?"

K

 

[MIL-DOT]

You could ask: If the Government didn't mean for individuals to own and bear armms, why didn't they start confiscating them immediately after ratifying the constitution over 200 years ago?
You could ask: Why is it that the term "the people",everywhere it's used in the constitution,means exactly that,"THE PEOPLE", yet in this one isolated case, we're supposed to believe "the people" now refers to government controlled military organizations ?

 

[Kentak]

Loomis said

We are born with our rights. our rights pre-existed The US government, the US constitution, and even pre-existed all forms of government and written language.

Ummm, that's one belief. However, it's on an intellectual level with pixie dust.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1342-Natural_Rights.aspx

Answered by William Thomas

Rights are fundamental political principles. As such, they are based in morality. They summarize how human beings ought to be treated in a social context, and what are the fundamental ways in which we ought to deal with others. Objectivism holds that there is basically one fundamental right: the right to live free from force. Other rights apply, extend, or support this fundamental right.

Rights are "natural" in the same way any true principle is natural: it is based on facts of reality. See my FAQ, Why Should One Act on Principle, for more details.

So people are not "born with" these rights. In fact, that is absurd: rights are principles we discover and learn to apply. What people are born with is the natural capacities for reason and independent living, and the biological need for material goods, that are the essential bases for individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

Ayn Rand encapsulized this point in Atlas Shrugged, where she wrote:

"If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is is purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational."

(paperback, 1959, p. 986)

A supernatural creator has nothing to do with justifying rights. Indeed, we could not in justice call a moral rule originating in a supernatural creator "natural." In essence, "nature" is what can be known by reason; the supernatural, it is said, is the un-natural, that which cannot be known by reason. Theist defenders of rights would therefore do better to call their view "supernatural rights theory." But fortunately, defenders of natural rights in the past for the most part based their view on rational arguments related to the facts of human nature, and not merely on religious whims.

I hope this answer helps you understand the issue more clearly. Please troll around our website and see what else you can learn there. Read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead and discover Ayn Rand's world-view. I hope you will stay interested in Objectivism and come to see that a rational world-view is one of optimism and confidence in the powers of human knowledge.

 

[Mountie855]

The news story a while back about the ACLU preparing to sue a United States Marine because he shot and killed a wounded Iraqi insurgent that appeared to be reaching for a grenade pin tells me all I need to know about the ACLU.

 

[lee n. field]

I want to spank them a mite during question and answer time after the presentation.

I would say, don't ask them, tell them that their KABA stance is a problem.

 

[mljdeckard]

Ask to see their hands. Scratch your head when their second finger isn't missing. (They skip two when they count to ten.)

I used that one on a cousin of mine who came home from college an ACLU disciple. She had no idea what the second amendment says, nor what position, if any, the ACLU has ever taken regarding it. I then proceeded to lecture her about what a fundamental human right really is, and that one has just as much right to protect themselves from harm as they do to speak their mind. Bearing arms is every bit as much the means to implement this right as printing presses are the implementation of freedom of speech. A right delayed is a right denied. Yes or no?

I doubt you will get that far.

 

[tpaw]

Don't go it alone. Have a few friends with questions sit in different sections of the room. That way, more questions can be asked. Once they realize your stance, they will just ignore you.

 

[MIL-DOT]

(quote) "I hope you will stay interested in Objectivism and come to see that a rational world-view is one of optimism and confidence in the powers of human knowledge."

Uh, considering the history of the human race, if you really have "optimism and confidence in the powers of human knowledge",not to mention subscribe to the "world view" of Ayn Rand, then honorable member Loomis ain't the one here "on an intellectual level with pixie dust".

 

[Phil Lee]

You don't have to believe in a creator to accept the idea that a person has rights by reason of his/her existence (birth). Certainly, the founders had that revolutionary notion and it drove how they drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And that idea isn't pixie dust. It is a logical consequence of how people should peacefully interact in society.

The problem today is that the people haven't really learned their birthright and the nature of the American Constitution remains a mystery to them. We need to teach at every opportunity that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it grants powers from the people and protects pre-existing rights, even to those choosing to display cynical wit to satisfy their ego.