The ACLU on guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Communism is an economic system, but it is more correctly termed SOCIALISM VIA DICTATORSHIP.

And while I paint with a broad brush there is Trotskyism (look at our self-described neoconservative politicians today for modern examples thereof), Leninism and Marxism. All are generically termed "Communism" just as all of the fighting dogs are termed "Molossids" (i.e., Mastiffs) or "Bulldogs".

So, good call.
 
As a card carrying member of BOTH the ACLU AND the NRA, I look at it this way...

Me too.

I think that the rights in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution work together. The NRA has been delirously happy to support politicians who were busy shredding privacy and due priocess rights.

Now that the government has been given the power - by the NRA funded politicans - to go to any gun store and ask for lists of purchases any time w/o even the slightest scrutiny by a judge, who do you think will be the targets of "national security letters" when the anti-gun folks are in power? And if your buddy at the gun shop give you a heads up, he goes to jail.

Hope you've never checked any gun books out of the library - politicans who go massive donations from NRA decided that it would be a good idea to let the feds have access to those records. You can thank folks who focus on the RKBA as an exclusive right for those "national security letters."

I forgot, we're guaranteed that those letters will only be used against someon e with "Mohammed" as first name, or "ibn" somewhere in their name.

Every time we pass a law - assured that it will only be used against bad guys - it ends up being used against anyone the government wants to use it aaginst. Remember RICO was only supposed to be used against "mafia bosses". Now, the only people it's not used aganist is mafia bosses!

The authors of the Bill of Rights got it correct - the rights are all interlinked. Without right to due process, without rights against unlawful searches, what value is the right to keep and bear arms?

Mike
 
The authors of the Bill of Rights got it correct - the rights are all interlinked. Without right to due process, without rights against unlawful searches, what value is the right to keep and bear arms?

True enough. So isn't ironic that the group which you assert protects the first two of the rights you enumerated has decided for political reasons that the last right you assert doesn't exist?

If the gov't uses ACLU sanctioned methods to round up firearms, the ACLU will do . . . what?
 
buzz_knox said:
True enough. So isn't ironic that the group which you assert protects the first two of the rights you enumerated has decided for political reasons that the last right you assert doesn't exist?

Huh? Where in my post did you find that assertion that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist?

Did you miss the "card carrying member of the NRA" part?

Mike
 
Huh? Where in my post did you find that assertion that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist?

My statement was about the irony of a group protecting two rights while insisting the third doesn't exist. It wasn't directed at you, although there is a certain irony in your strong suggestion that the NRA doesn't protect other rights, and that somehow the ACLU does, when the ACLU is guilty of exactly the same thing as the NRA: picking and choosing which rights it will support in order to serve its needs.
 
I'm going to be calling the local branch head. He knows me, and will be willing to talk if nothing else about the issue.
 
I want to like the ACLU, but I don't agree with thier postion on ONE of the Bill of Rights.

I see a lot of arguements about how the NRA only is concerned with the 2nd A, and not the others and this fact somehow justifies the ACLU's position.

It doesn't in my opinion, and I'll explain.

The ACLU supposedly supports our rights as American Citizens under the Bill of Rights. They effectively paint with a broad brush that encompasses all our civil rights -- except the RKBA.

By supporting all of the Bill of Rights EXCEPT the 2nd Amendment, they are essentially stating that this should not be an individual Right.

Groups like the NRA are special interest groups. They have a pin-point focus rather than a broad brush. There are MANY pin-point focused groups out there, though none as powerful as the NRA.


It's really comparing apples to oranges when using the NRA and ACLU.


-- John
 

The point of my post was that I was a card carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA. Maybe I didn't make that clear. Neither protects them all. Did you read the post I quoted?

lanternlad1 said:
As a card carrying member of BOTH the ACLU AND the NRA, I look at it this way...

The ACLU works hard to protect MOST of our rights.
The NRA works hard to protect the right the ACLU doesnt protect.

How can you possibly read that as an assertion that the ACLU protects the RKBA?

I wish there were one organzation that protected them all! As RKBA advocates, I think we have a tendency to forget the other rights, and to ignore assaults on those rights.

Mike
 
I wish there were one organzation that protected them all! As RKBA advocates, I think we have a tendency to forget the other rights, and to ignore assaults on those rights.


The problem is that they organizations typically support diametrically opposed law-makers. Supporting them both equates to a net-zero in benefit.

I, too, would like to see a strong Pro-ALL Rights organization.


-- John
 
How can you possibly read that as an assertion that the ACLU protects the RKBA?

Read what I wrote again:

True enough. So isn't ironic that the group which you assert protects the first two of the rights you enumerated has decided for political reasons that the last right you assert doesn't exist?

You asserted three rights in your statement. I merely commented that the organization you support for its (alleged given its suppression of internal dissent) committment to the first two has decided the last right you listed doesn't exist.
 
buzz_knox - baby steps. It's better than doing nothing right?

Plus, he knows most of the national HQ big-wigs and is on good terms with them.

Also, the "local branch" that I worked at and know the head of, is the state HQ for the ACLU. So that can only help I'd assume. He's actually a reasonable guy, so I'll bet he'll listen. Whether or not he agrees or disagrees is fine - that's the beauty of America afterall - but he'll listen, and that's a start.
 
buzz_knox - baby steps. It's better than doing nothing right?

Plus, he knows most of the national HQ big-wigs and is on good terms with them.

I know you didn't mean it that way, but I have to say this is incredibly ironic. A person can say what he wants within an organization dedicated to freedom of speech not because of said freedom, but because his assocation and friendships with those in power will protect him.
 
If you want an organization that protects the entire bill of rights try the Cato Institute. It is about as close as you are going to get.
 
What gets me is if someone (like me) steps up and says they won't join the NRA because they disagree with many of its stances and approaches, lotsa folks here will defend the organization and talk about it being the duty of any gun owner to join, because they do good in other areas. Some will point out that the best way to change the organization is to join it, or even become a life member to gain voting rights. If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem, right?

On the other hand, many of those same posters will vilify the the ACLU because of their stance on gun rights, and will take the opposite approach to it. They may do good works, but if they're not pro-gun then you're wrong to join. You want to take a membership role and try to change things from the inside? You're somehow misguided...

Rights are rights, I'd think...
 
Derek.

I sympathize with that opinion, but it still falls back to the nature by which those rights are protected.

Often organizations such as the NRA, ACLU, etc. support Rights by contributing to campaigns and spend on lobbying efforts to certain policitians.

It's the major methods of supporting the rights that hang us up.

Basically, a dollar spent supporting the ACLU very well may offset that dollar given to the NRA. All that ends up happening is the politicians benefit, the organizations get clout, and you are now out $2.


-- John
 
Basically, a dollar spent supporting the ACLU very well may offset that dollar given to the NRA. All that ends up happening is the politicians benefit, the organizations get clout, and you are now out $2.
And for those of us who care about all of our rights, that goes both ways. Agreed?
 
JWarren said:
By supporting all of the Bill of Rights EXCEPT the 2nd Amendment, they are essentially stating that this should not be an individual Right.
Some rights are more equal than others, at least according to the ACLU apparently.
 
On the other hand, many of those same posters will vilify the the ACLU because of their stance on gun rights, and will take the opposite approach to it. They may do good works, but if they're not pro-gun then you're wrong to join. You want to take a membership role and try to change things from the inside? You're somehow misguided...

You can't change things from the inside, remember? The ACLU doesn't allow dissent.

Individual members and even local chapters are interested in rights; the ACLU as an organization seems far more interested in becoming the arbiter of what those rights are.

By supporting all of the Bill of Rights EXCEPT the 2nd Amendment, they are essentially stating that this should not be an individual Right.

There's nothing "essential" about it. That's the statement they've put forth. The 2nd Amendment is not an individual right in the view of the ACLU, because they don't like what the result of said right would be.
 
And for those of us who care about all of our rights, that goes both ways. Agreed?


Very much in agreement-- which is why I would love to see a powerful, full-blown PAC representing ALL of our rights.

It doesn't seem that it would be all that hard to have one. I honestly think most people see it that way-- Take THR for example.

I give the ACLU credit for being more multi-faceted than other PAC's, and I do think it is a short-coming of groups like the NRA to be single-faceted. Really, it isn't the PAC's that are so much of the problem as it is our two-party system. It's hard to pick "A" or "B" when they both lacking in thier platform ideals.


Just my take.


All the best!

-- John
 
While I cannot site any particular harm done us by the ACLU, as you ask, I submit that via their strange selectiveness, they have weakened the entirety of the BOR.
This certainly comes down to individual perspective but I certainly think the ACLU has won more court victories that have had a real impact on freedom than any perceived weakening by selectiveness. If you're honest with yourself, do you really think they've taken more freedom than they're protected? Thats a real tough sell for me.

The harm is done by what political candidates they support for office.
What am I do then when the NRA supports candidates that weaken my other rights? If we sacrifice all the other rights for the 2nd amendment, what is the 2nd amendment even protecting anymore? I would imagine far more ACLU money is spent on legal battle than elections but thats just a wild guess.

I'd love it if they agreed with me 100% but at the end of the day I want as many people fighting for the bill of rights as possible. Supporting only the NRA won't help out the other 9. Supporting the ACLU won't help the 2nd amendment but it won't hurt it and it will work for the other 9. Turning them down isn't going to protect any of my freedoms.
 
I would imagine far more ACLU money is spent on legal battle than elections but thats just a wild guess.

The opposite of this has been an unsubstantiated premise in my reasoning in this thread. My contention has been that the monies donated likely are spent more on placing candidates.

As you have acknowledged in guessing, I'm making assumptions as well. I'll see if I can't find some information on how monies are spent. It's unlikely that it will be public however.

If monies are spent more on placing candidates, then it's an impossible impasse. On some level or the other, supporting one will go against another, and vice-versa.

And that frustrates me, as I imagine it does others here as well.


-- John
 
In the interest of helping us end our speculation I've found this so far
http://www.acluprocon.org/pop/ACLUStructure.html#budget

The American Civil Liberties Union is composed of two separate corporate entitites: the ACLU Foundation and the ACLU. The ACLU engages primarily in legislative lobbying while the ACLU Foundation carries out most of the litigation and communication efforts. A contribution to the ACLU Foundation is tax-deductible but does not provide membership privileges. Membership is possible only through a non-tax deductible contribution to the ACLU. The two organizations share office space and employees and are together commonly referred to as the ACLU.

ACLU Expenses - 2004 - $19,817,957
36% Public Education & Mobilization
31% Affiliate Distributions
19% Fundraising & Management
14% Lobbying & Public Policy Formulation

ACLU Foundation Expenses - 2004 - $31,349,650
38% Public Education & Mobilization
34% Litigation
19% Fundraising & Management
9% Affiliate Distributions
 
No "speculation" on my part... I know that are a threat to liberty within the United States of America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top