ACLU members, please explain?
- Thread starter DasBoot
- Start date
- Status
Interesting use of smoke-and-mirrors, but pretty amateurish compared to rational thought and discourse, sir.
The ACLU contends that it represents ALL Americans (and most foreign citizens on American soil) against the loss of constitutionally guaranteed liberties. It pointedly ignores issues dealing with the Second Amendment. It's proclamations are flawed, and false.
The other organizations you attempted to lampoon proclaim to protect the Second Amendment rights as stated. Hmmmmmm...........so they are working on helping us with gun issues, exclusively........why, that would be the truth!!!!
I'm aware of how plastic the "truth" is when it involves politics. However, other than Clinton's "it depends on the definition of 'it'" defense, most of us can be reliably counted on to see when an organization is untrue to it's mission statement.
It's a shame that the ACLU doesn't involve itself in "Truth in Advertising". It could start with itself.
The ACLU contends that it represents ALL Americans (and most foreign citizens on American soil) against the loss of constitutionally guaranteed liberties. It pointedly ignores issues dealing with the Second Amendment. It's proclamations are flawed, and false.
The other organizations you attempted to lampoon proclaim to protect the Second Amendment rights as stated. Hmmmmmm...........so they are working on helping us with gun issues, exclusively........why, that would be the truth!!!!
I'm aware of how plastic the "truth" is when it involves politics. However, other than Clinton's "it depends on the definition of 'it'" defense, most of us can be reliably counted on to see when an organization is untrue to it's mission statement.
It's a shame that the ACLU doesn't involve itself in "Truth in Advertising". It could start with itself.
JR47,
I am not attempting to 'lampoon' any of these organizations; I support all of them to varying degrees.
What I'm saying is that I support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their entirety and I'm willing to help any organization that is either willing to do the same or not work counter to my goal.
You claim (and have yet to prove) that the ACLU is attacking the 2nd Amdt and all I'm asking for is an alternative.
Is there any organization out there that supports the *entire* Constitution?
Just a simple yes or no.
If yes, name it and I'll join. If no, then tell me what I can do that is preferable to what I'm doing now.
The way I see it, supporting the ACLU and the NRA covers all the bases. You disagree and that's fine.
Give me a better option if you have one.
[edit] At this point, I'm only interested in one of three answers from you:
Answer #1: (insert organization here) has an established track record of supporting the entire Constitution. You should consider joining them.
Answer #2: No organization embraces the entire Constitution, but here is a better course of action: (insert CoA here)
Answer #3: No, you're doing the best you can under the circumstances.
[/edit]
I await your response.
I am not attempting to 'lampoon' any of these organizations; I support all of them to varying degrees.
What I'm saying is that I support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their entirety and I'm willing to help any organization that is either willing to do the same or not work counter to my goal.
You claim (and have yet to prove) that the ACLU is attacking the 2nd Amdt and all I'm asking for is an alternative.
Is there any organization out there that supports the *entire* Constitution?
Just a simple yes or no.
If yes, name it and I'll join. If no, then tell me what I can do that is preferable to what I'm doing now.
The way I see it, supporting the ACLU and the NRA covers all the bases. You disagree and that's fine.
Give me a better option if you have one.
[edit] At this point, I'm only interested in one of three answers from you:
Answer #1: (insert organization here) has an established track record of supporting the entire Constitution. You should consider joining them.
Answer #2: No organization embraces the entire Constitution, but here is a better course of action: (insert CoA here)
Answer #3: No, you're doing the best you can under the circumstances.
[/edit]
I await your response.
You've been working in advertising, haven't you? Or perhaps a poll-taker? Canned answers are nice, but not in a discussion.
The ACLU has stated, as you recognize, that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. That's pretty much in opposition to Constitutional Lawyers opinion. The ACLU has been repeatedly approached to act against laws in violation of the Second Amendment, and has refused to become involved.
If your opinion of the ACLU allows you to ignore their stand on the Second Amendment, then, by all means, support them. However, support them with the knowledge that other organizations that you also support in favor of the definition of the Second Amendment may one day have to oppose the ACLU in a court of law for that same Second Amendment.
Still with me? Good. If you still feel that the ACLU deserves your support, but you are feeling a little uneasy on the Second Amendment issue, take it up with the ACLU, from the perspective of a member. The resultant explanation, and course of action, that the ACLU intends should make the choice for you.
The ACLU makes some unusual decisions as to the laws it objects to, or the people it defends. That is their right. I applaud much of what they do. However, I don't want to support any organization who's published answer on what I consider an important subject is in direct opposition to mine. I'd rather not fund them to help reduce what I consider my right to self-defense.
Fair enough? Thanks for a breath of fresh air in a debate.
The ACLU has stated, as you recognize, that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. That's pretty much in opposition to Constitutional Lawyers opinion. The ACLU has been repeatedly approached to act against laws in violation of the Second Amendment, and has refused to become involved.
If your opinion of the ACLU allows you to ignore their stand on the Second Amendment, then, by all means, support them. However, support them with the knowledge that other organizations that you also support in favor of the definition of the Second Amendment may one day have to oppose the ACLU in a court of law for that same Second Amendment.
Still with me? Good. If you still feel that the ACLU deserves your support, but you are feeling a little uneasy on the Second Amendment issue, take it up with the ACLU, from the perspective of a member. The resultant explanation, and course of action, that the ACLU intends should make the choice for you.
The ACLU makes some unusual decisions as to the laws it objects to, or the people it defends. That is their right. I applaud much of what they do. However, I don't want to support any organization who's published answer on what I consider an important subject is in direct opposition to mine. I'd rather not fund them to help reduce what I consider my right to self-defense.
Fair enough? Thanks for a breath of fresh air in a debate.
Of course Boot is right, but that doesn't mean the "Don't Tread on Me" crowd is wrong...
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
We are at war.
We, not our soldiers, but us, all of us, are at war, not at police action.
Boot gets that, the DToM guys don't (they seem to believe this is some kind of "Iron Mountain" plot to empower a police state).
They see this as courts and trials and police and probable cause.
We see it as a Muslim 5th column living amongst us that is actively enabling our enemy by any and all means.
I am amusing myself imagining you guys explaining this to the founders:
"Gentlemen. We will not allow the Government to obtain information on our enemy even from those caught on the battlefield because of the Constitution you wrote"
They would laugh you out of the room.
G
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
We are at war.
We, not our soldiers, but us, all of us, are at war, not at police action.
Boot gets that, the DToM guys don't (they seem to believe this is some kind of "Iron Mountain" plot to empower a police state).
They see this as courts and trials and police and probable cause.
We see it as a Muslim 5th column living amongst us that is actively enabling our enemy by any and all means.
I am amusing myself imagining you guys explaining this to the founders:
"Gentlemen. We will not allow the Government to obtain information on our enemy even from those caught on the battlefield because of the Constitution you wrote"
They would laugh you out of the room.
G
All:
The ACLU has defended Nazi's right to march in a predominantly Jewish town; the ACLU has defended the North American Man Boy Love Association. The ACLU has stopped George I-Don't-Need-No-Stinkin'-Warrant Bush from spying on us without a warrant.
I don't approve of all their customers, but I don't get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution apply to some Americans and not to others.
You owe a larger debt for your freeedom to the ACLU than to George Never-Read-The-Document Bush.
Kowboy
The ACLU has defended Nazi's right to march in a predominantly Jewish town; the ACLU has defended the North American Man Boy Love Association. The ACLU has stopped George I-Don't-Need-No-Stinkin'-Warrant Bush from spying on us without a warrant.
I don't approve of all their customers, but I don't get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution apply to some Americans and not to others.
You owe a larger debt for your freeedom to the ACLU than to George Never-Read-The-Document Bush.
Kowboy
DonR101395
New member
No, no I don't. I've never wanted to march with Nazis, I'm never wanted a little boy for anything other than to take to the gun range and shoot, and I've never felt that my privacy was violated. All they have done for me is show me that they are only good at attempting to make weirdos and fringe groups seem normal.
JR47,
No, I'm not "still with you". They do not believe that the 2nd is an individual right. Point conceded. And they have (as you say) refused to become involved. So how you spin that into "they may one day sue in opposition to the 2nd" is beyond me. They have shown no inclination or tendency to do any such thing. If and when they do, the NRA will kick their butts up between their shoulder blades and they will lose a huge chunk of their funding from people like myself.
You don't like the fact that they don't support the 2nd. Yes, I get it. That's really all you've been saying in this thread. I don't like it either, but since it appears that you don't have any better ideas I'm going to keep on supporting them.
No, I'm not "still with you". They do not believe that the 2nd is an individual right. Point conceded. And they have (as you say) refused to become involved. So how you spin that into "they may one day sue in opposition to the 2nd" is beyond me. They have shown no inclination or tendency to do any such thing. If and when they do, the NRA will kick their butts up between their shoulder blades and they will lose a huge chunk of their funding from people like myself.
You don't like the fact that they don't support the 2nd. Yes, I get it. That's really all you've been saying in this thread. I don't like it either, but since it appears that you don't have any better ideas I'm going to keep on supporting them.
DonR101395
New member
GS,
Since when is wanting to hump little boys and dressing up like Hitler so you can beat on Jews a constitutional right. I wasn't aware of that ammendment
Since when is wanting to hump little boys and dressing up like Hitler so you can beat on Jews a constitutional right. I wasn't aware of that ammendment
No, you don't LIKE any of my suggestions. They are as valid as your opinions are, just not your way of doing things, I'd guess.
I believe that the ACLU filed a "Friend of the Court" during more than one Federal level Second Amendment Case. As a member, you'd have access more easily than me to their records.
That said, there is little to prevent an organization from taking the last baby-step to becoming active in a court battle.
Losing money after a decision is a 50-50 bet. One that they routinely take. Being put on notice that such a direction would result in the immediate loss of funding is a much better approach. Pro-active beats reactive.
I believe that the ACLU filed a "Friend of the Court" during more than one Federal level Second Amendment Case. As a member, you'd have access more easily than me to their records.
That said, there is little to prevent an organization from taking the last baby-step to becoming active in a court battle.
Losing money after a decision is a 50-50 bet. One that they routinely take. Being put on notice that such a direction would result in the immediate loss of funding is a much better approach. Pro-active beats reactive.
"You claim (and have yet to prove) that the ACLU is attacking the 2nd Amdt "
"They do not believe that the 2nd is an individual right. Point conceded."
About time you recognized the truth about one of your pet organizations. After all, it's been common knowledge for many years.
John
"They do not believe that the 2nd is an individual right. Point conceded."
About time you recognized the truth about one of your pet organizations. After all, it's been common knowledge for many years.
John
Now, don't discourage them. The usual ACLU party line is that it doesn't take a position on the 2nd Amendment. Which is, of course, a barefaced lie. This is serious progress.
Personally, I support the entire Constitution and find the ACLU to be a haphazard supporter. It supports the Constitution when it fits the agenda. When it doesn't, then the ACLU remains silent . . . or works against the Constitution.
JR47,
No...as far as I can tell you gaven't given me any "suggestions" despite my repeated requests. Perhaps I'm mistaken or simply don't recognize them for what they are.
Please tell me what *exactly* it is that you "suggest" I do.
Don,
I never said any of that stuff was Constitutionally protected. But the people that engage in that reprehensible behavior are still Americans and still have rights. When others seek to infringe those rights without due process they are on the wrong side of the law and Constitution.
johnbt,
'Not defending' and 'attacking' are two different things. If you equate them, please explain your logic so I can play along.
No...as far as I can tell you gaven't given me any "suggestions" despite my repeated requests. Perhaps I'm mistaken or simply don't recognize them for what they are.
Please tell me what *exactly* it is that you "suggest" I do.
Don,
I never said any of that stuff was Constitutionally protected. But the people that engage in that reprehensible behavior are still Americans and still have rights. When others seek to infringe those rights without due process they are on the wrong side of the law and Constitution.
johnbt,
'Not defending' and 'attacking' are two different things. If you equate them, please explain your logic so I can play along.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
You're either completely misunderstanding the nature of the lawsuits in question, or you are deliberately misrepresenting them. Neither option casts a good light on you.
In both instances, the ACLU wasn't defending someone's right to beat up Jews or molest little boys. In both cases, the ACLU defended the right of those people to engage in free speech, a right that is only safe when you are willing to grant it to even the most loathsome members of society.
The ACLU doesn't believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right; that much is true. Ergo, they do not engage themselves in lawsuits on behalf of people against the government when Second Amendment issues are involved. However, I am not aware of them actively working against the Second, or the Constitution, and I'd love to see some evidence to back up that statement.
Is the ACLU bad because they actively defend all the articles of the Bill of Rights except one?
Is the NRA good because they actively defend only one article of the Bill of Rights?
I thought it helpful to post the ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment.
While this is from 2002, I'm not aware of any change.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
My favorite part is as follows:
In summary, because the ACLU didn't like the result of the individual intepretation, it rejected that result. Nothing like hypocrisy, given that it has attacked this exact line of reasoning in case after case.
While this is from 2002, I'm not aware of any change.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
My favorite part is as follows:
In summary, because the ACLU didn't like the result of the individual intepretation, it rejected that result. Nothing like hypocrisy, given that it has attacked this exact line of reasoning in case after case.
actually, it sounds more like: in today's world, you'd need at least a tank in your garage, and a vulcan cannon to effectively defend yourself from central gov't
I don't see how a few rifles, a shotgun, and handguns would effectively protect you from gov't descending on your home, in the event of totalitarian martial law.
manufacturing a good stockpile of my sn may help a bit, if you know how to detonate it.
p.s. : if you try to defend your 2nd amendment by violent means, that would technically make you a "terrorist"
I don't see how a few rifles, a shotgun, and handguns would effectively protect you from gov't descending on your home, in the event of totalitarian martial law.
manufacturing a good stockpile of my sn may help a bit, if you know how to detonate it.
p.s. : if you try to defend your 2nd amendment by violent means, that would technically make you a "terrorist"
DonR101395
New member
Let me start by saying I don't want to see anyones rights violated. However, I'm not misunderstanding or misrepresenting anything. The ACLU has historically taken cases from loathsome people/groups and assurted that because they are messed up in the head it's ok, they just didn't get the love from society that they needed. That is what has gotten this country in the condition it's in now, all of the pc, let's love each other, can't we all get along bs makes me sick. They have championed hate crime laws. Those are just another line of laws that already had another law governing it. In case they didn't know, it was already against the law to murder, beat and maim regardless of your skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. The only thing I've seen them push is a left wing pc agenda. Personally I wouldn't care if they support NAMBLA, Neo Nazis or the ya ya sisterhood as long as they would stop trying to tell me I need to love and support them as well. If you find this offensive, well, I guess you find it offensive. But not nearly as offensive as I find the ACLU.
Is it your 1st ammendment right to scream bomb in an airport? Try it and let me know how it turns out for you. Think the ACLU will come defend you?.............................................................sad thing is they probably would.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Thank you for proving my point that you simply don't understand the lawsuits in question. They took those cases because they understand that free speech is only free when...
Ah, forget about it. Yes, they take cases from loathsome groups because they love the idea of Nazi pedophiles molesting little Jewish boys while watching midget porn and singing the Internationale. Happy?
Sometimes I truly feel that I am debating a brick wall here.
goslash. Try this, then. The ACLU has adopted the Clinton/ Reno definition of the Second Amendment. It has filed "friend of the court briefs" supporting that definition. It is only a small step further to see them taking direct action against legislation that doesn't follow their definition. That would pit them against the NRA, GOA, etc.
If YOU feel that you can support such an organization, then continue to do so. You are too much the politician for me. I cannot rationalize, or compromise, my allegiances to think that such a group "does so many other good things", and are worthy of my support.
I, for one, do not feel, as your position has forced you to do, to maintain credibility, that I need to support ANY entity that doesn't agree with my fundamental beliefs. You don't want me to give you an alternative to a poorly conceived logic trap, so you can't "imagine what I'm talking about".
The ACLU is inimical to the idea of the Second Amendment being an individual right. I stated that, and yoou at first denied it. Now, you say that you can support other groups for the Second Amendment, while also supporting the ACLU. I'm saying that the logic is flawed and spurious.
You can stick with them. It's not all that important to me. However, you have misrepresented the aims of the ACLU, and I just helped you to straighten out that error on your part. You're welcome.
If YOU feel that you can support such an organization, then continue to do so. You are too much the politician for me. I cannot rationalize, or compromise, my allegiances to think that such a group "does so many other good things", and are worthy of my support.
I, for one, do not feel, as your position has forced you to do, to maintain credibility, that I need to support ANY entity that doesn't agree with my fundamental beliefs. You don't want me to give you an alternative to a poorly conceived logic trap, so you can't "imagine what I'm talking about".
The ACLU is inimical to the idea of the Second Amendment being an individual right. I stated that, and yoou at first denied it. Now, you say that you can support other groups for the Second Amendment, while also supporting the ACLU. I'm saying that the logic is flawed and spurious.
You can stick with them. It's not all that important to me. However, you have misrepresented the aims of the ACLU, and I just helped you to straighten out that error on your part. You're welcome.
- Status