Will ACLU Support Gun Rights After McDonald?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The ACLU is taking a beating by its own members over its stance on DC v. Heller. You can hardly find a ACLU member to defend the stance now - it's mainly the leadership who are refusing to acknowledge reality.

Might take a year or two before the membership forces a change. The position is untenable and everybody knows it.
 
Smoking, of all the items in your list, I like # 11 best. It means that you and the ACLU get to decide which of my political opinions constitutes benighted and ignorant opposition to civil rights. Whether you could be more patronizing to the rest of us is a real question. But before you brush us aside, you might consider that the BOR, as currently "interpreted" (and I use the word advisedly) by the SCOTUS contains a specific amendment about keeping and bearing arms. There's nothing in there about Gitmo or legal weed. We could debate most of the stuff on your list as civil rights issues (if you condescended to do so with such a bunch of knuckle-draggers as the rest of us), but I would aver that the 2nd Amendment is different from all those other matters because it specifically articulates an individual right. Why would you and the ACLU require any quid pro quo for support of such an obviously valid position?

Hey, does #11, "etc." support giving the terrorists at Gitmo free hash and some flags to burn? That would be cool, and I'm sure the ACLU would be fine with it.
 
Robhof wrote:

I posted on their website several times about the 2nd amendment after they sent me an invite for a free trial membership to their website. They eventually sent me an uninvite and referred me to the NRA.

That was cute, and brought a smile to my face. At least the fake liberals sent you to the right organization. :)
 
If the national ACLU really respected civil rights in principle when why would it matter where your average gun owner stood on the following issues? Also if you read the thread regarding Heller and the ACLU's position on it on the ACLU's website (which is basically - no matter what the court says we don't believe that it is an individual right), you will read hundreds of posts from members asking them to change their position and people who state they would be members and support the ACLU if only they would also support the 2nd.

In regards to the list I would seriously doubt that even most people who are ACLU members and supporters agree with every item as defined by the ACLU.


My personal views

1. State-sponsored religion;
Agree I don't want the government involved with establishing a state religion - since some things are too important to allow government involvement. However I do not support the idea that that federal, local, or state government must prohibit all displays or references of a traditional religious nature from it's property - in particular when said display is not supported by public money and no discrimination is made in regards to a particular faith whether it is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc...

2. Discrimination against homosexuals;
Agree, though don't agree with the marriage issue, but that is because I don't think the state should be involved in any type of marriage at all - that should be a matter for church or other similar organizations - if individuals want to enter into contracts - visa via a legal agreement - then let them do that - but don't call legal agreements marriage.

3. Keeping Guantanamo Bay open and not extending civil rights to the prisoners held there;

Don't see how Guantanamo Bay being open is specifically a civil rights issue by itself - seems more like a political decision. As far as civil rights for prisoners - they were captured by the military and not arrested by the police - so if the government wants to keep them under the umbrella of military justice - again I think that is a political decision.

4. Invasions of privacy under the "War on Terror;"

Agree


5. Keeping drugs illegal;

While I don't use drugs or alcohol, and while I think people who believe that legalizing drugs won't cause major problems in terms or increased drug use in our society are naive, I also think that the war on drugs has created more lethal violence and problems than it benefits. So I would reluctantly agree with legalization.


6. Joe Arpaio's prisoner abuse;

I don't see this as a major civil rights issue - and I don't think that his so called abuse is really abuse.


7. Allowing the military to recruit young people aggressively;

This is total crap - no one is being shanghaied or pressed into military service.


8. Allowing police to use Tasers;

While I think some cases of real abuse need to be addressed - I also think police need to have this tool as it is generally less than lethal and offers a real alternative to people being shot.


9. Banning flag burning;

Agree, is some jerk wants to burn a flag that is his choice - and I can use my first amendment right to tell him what I think of what he/she is doing.


10. Capital punishment;

Disagree - some people should be put to death for their crimes - if the system needs reform then reform it - but it is a reasonable punishment for people like John Wayne Gacy, Adolf Hitler, Ted Bundy, Saddam Hussein, and individuals who are in prison for murder and continue to kill fellow inmates and guards.

11. etc.,

Agree - in terms of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Or does the civil right to defend my life not come under ect... Guess that isn't important enough when you compare it to issues 3, 6, 7, and 8.
 
Last edited:
Agree strongly with most of smoking357's list.

But it's not either-or.... it's both. We as a sub-group of gun owners (actual civil libertarians) need to both show that we support their agenda, causes and actions, in principal, and thank them, as well as try to get elected to positions of power and change it from the INSIDE --

AND, at the same time, we need to continue to loudly ridicule and condemn their 2A stance and refuse all financial support and tell them why (arbitrary exclusion of one of many civil rights).

They probably will eventually come around, if we keep after them - as we further enter the information age, it's harder and harder to keep the truth contained. And the truth is what will undo their nonsensical stance.

A favorable outcome in McDonald will not immediately change anything from their hardcore higher-ups, but it will be one large wave in the growing tide against them on this issue.
 
Last edited:
F' pete's sake, don't most of the posters here

know the history of the ACLU? Google it--I'm not going to do your work for you.

Jim H.
 
Gosh, if you guys would just "compromise" -- and accept some "reasonable gun safety" legislation, then the ACLU might agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the collective right of the militia to keep and bear arms. :D

Don't worry about the ACLU. Donate money to the NRA-ILA, and make sure that politicians know that their vote for gun control will make you vote against them. Worrying about the ACLU is a waste of time and resources.
 
We need to be seen as their friend, rather than as the group most frequently insulting them.

Maybe if we took over their financing in the process. Otherwise they do not care. The left wingers who butter the ACLU bread will never, ever permit a change on the Second.
 
When it comes to the national ACLU, they can not be bargained with and they can not be reasoned with. It doesn't matter if the NRA took up every single one of the causes the ACLU fights for, as well as made huge yearly donations; they would still stand behind what they think the 2nd Amendment means, and that is that. They are not going to change their minds now or ever; and no amount of "compromsing" with them is going to help.

Let me put it another way. The chances of changing the positions of Diane Fienstein and Carolyn McCarthy on "assault weapons" is the same as changing the national ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment. To them it always will be, forever and ever, a collective right that has nothing to do with civil rights for individual people.
 
I posted on their website several times about the 2nd amendment after they sent me an invite for a free trial membership to their website. They eventually sent me an uninvite and referred me to the NRA.
LOL, that is awesome. PLEASE post a scan or screenshot of the uninvite and reference to the NRA.

To answer the question of the thread: no. The ACLU will continue to ignore the 2nd amendment and to POUT like children, even after Mcdonald. I expect though, after a few years, to see some grudging admission to "the courts establishing an individual right to bear arms, and therefore we at ACLU don't need to do anything more in this regard."
 
When it comes to the national ACLU, they can not be bargained with and they can not be reasoned with.

That is awesome!!! The ACLU is like the Terminator.

Listen, and understand. That ACLU is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
 
"That is awesome!!! The ACLU is like the Terminator.

Listen, and understand. That ACLU is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."

That'd probably be more accurate with the Brady Campaign. "Listen, and understand. The Brady's are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until law-abbiding citizens are disarmed."

Edit: Sorry I can't quote you. I've tried quoting on this site, I've even been here since 08, and I still can't figure it out. Why they don't make it easy and have a "reply with quote" button like every other site, is beyond me.
 
It works this way...

First, highlight what you want to quote with your mouse. Then copy and paste it to where you want it to be. For example:

Why they don't make it easy and have a "reply with quote" button like every other site, is beyond be.

Then highlight it again and click on the little box in the row above the message, 4th in from the right. You will get this:

When you post the message it will look like the above.
 
No, no they will not. The same way they don't support them after Heller, is because it's not principles they stand for, it's ends--the ends of those who bankroll them, i.e. the anti-gun left.
 
Why they don't make it easy and have a "reply with quote" button like every other site, is beyond me.

Go look at forums that have that handy little button.

People click that and you end up with 400 lines of previous replies just for the next guy to say

"yeah, +1"

Forcing posters to stop and actually cut and paste the relevant sections keeps the posts readable. The "reply with quote" button is a HORRIBLE idea, especially if you browse the site on a mobile device.

Sorry for the sidetrack.....
 
I've daydreamed about getting enough gun owners to join the ACLU to force them to change their stance on the Second Amendment--a hostile takeover of sorts.

The numbers work--the ACLU only has about 500,000 members, while the NRA has about 4 million.
 
Then highlight it again and click on the little box in the row above the message, 4th in from the right. You will get this:

testing

Edit: Ok, thanks. I never saw that button, and all the script ways to quote that work on other sites didn't work when I tried them.
 
Is that even doable hirundo? I didn't think ACLU members voted on the national management but I admit my google-fu isn't showing me their founding documents or charter.
 
I don’t really understand the objective here- the ACLU is a left-wing organization, why try to force them to adopt a right-wing cause? Just accept that they are the other side and leave it at that.
 
I don’t really understand the objective here- the ACLU is a left-wing organization, why try to force them to adopt a right-wing cause? Just accept that they are the other side and leave it at that.

I think that's the problem though. The ACLU says they fight for civil rights. Owning firearms is a civil right, but they don't fight for it. So that disqualifies them from any right to say they are fighting for civil rights, when in fact they only fight for the causes they agree with. If they fought for all civil rights, regardless of whether or not they agree with them, then they would be a true civil rights organization.
 
While civil libertarians may quibble about an issue, here and there, disagreement with the ACLU on two or more of the cited issues calls one's commitment to civil rights seriously into question.

They'll be better toward us as we get better toward them.
smoking357

I thought (hoped) the original post w/ the list was a joke... After this I can say I have no problem with my commitment to civil rights being seriously questioned. Wouldn't the greatest advocacy of civil rights be to call for all Americans to be Armed and Free? :banghead:
 
Last edited:
Okay, the ACLU is dead wrong about heller, we all know it.

Now, about all the immature posts claiming that the ACLU is the worst thing to ever happen to this country...

Without the ACLU, we could be submitting to strip searches at every traffic stop, loyalty oaths to register to vote, and a fundamentalist christian version of Sharia law.

Too many visitors to this and other gun forums stood idly by when the Bush administration snuffed habeas corpus and started illegally wiretapping american citizens. You don't get to look the other way when your man is in office and then thump your chests pretending to be the sole saviors of the constitution.

The ACLU, notwithstanding its idiotic stance on the 2nd amendment, has championed the rights of all americans since its inception. Respect that.
 
TexasRifleman said:
Go look at forums that have that handy little button.

People click that and you end up with 400 lines of previous replies just for the next guy to say

"yeah, +1"

yeah, +1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top