I dont know a lot about the ACLU, but seem a lot of liberals are proud to be associated with them, such as , Mike "Got my butt beat" Dukaka, the Clintons (Hillary & Billary), etc. If they are proponents of civil liberties, wouldnt you think they would support candidates that support the second amendment? 'Sup with them?
ACLU & Second Amendant
- Thread starter FM12
- Start date
One would think that.
Unfortunately, they've taken a "Collective rights" take on the 2nd Amendment, taking the (I posit erroneous) opinion that it refers to a state's right rather than a personal.
That may change in the next few years, as some liberals residing in the judicial realm who apply civil liberties to individuals rather than collectives have begun to realize the backwardness of their opinions concerning the 2A. Talked about in this thread. Hope blooms eternal.
Unfortunately, they've taken a "Collective rights" take on the 2nd Amendment, taking the (I posit erroneous) opinion that it refers to a state's right rather than a personal.
That may change in the next few years, as some liberals residing in the judicial realm who apply civil liberties to individuals rather than collectives have begun to realize the backwardness of their opinions concerning the 2A. Talked about in this thread. Hope blooms eternal.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
ACLU official position #47 is that there is *cough* NO individual right to keep & bear arms - they subscribe to the "collective right" theory 
- and they support reasonable gun control measures.
Why? Because they are unthinking nincompoops with the intellects of 2nd graders. Asking them if they're smarter than a 5th grader is utterly unnecessary. Anyone with any intellectual integrity & honesty can see that the 2nd amendment is the most important because it protects all the others by keeping the people armed. In addition, they are prostitutes to the Democrat party, towing that line bit by bit. The ACLU, though doing some good work, deserves nothing but contempt from law-abiding gun owners.
- and they support reasonable gun control measures.Why? Because they are unthinking nincompoops with the intellects of 2nd graders. Asking them if they're smarter than a 5th grader is utterly unnecessary. Anyone with any intellectual integrity & honesty can see that the 2nd amendment is the most important because it protects all the others by keeping the people armed. In addition, they are prostitutes to the Democrat party, towing that line bit by bit. The ACLU, though doing some good work, deserves nothing but contempt from law-abiding gun owners.
The ACLU should really be named the American Communists' Legal Union. Founder Roger Baldwin, was a communist looking for a way to provide lawyers for Communist agitators and union organizers in the 20's. The history of the organization and the desire to enact A Communist America provided the basis for many of its policies.
Do a Google search on "Roger Baldwin" + Communist + ACLU to get a long list of articles.
The ACLU, from time to time, does make positive contributions to law. However it seems these are but mere side effects to their main goal of bringing Socialism to the U.S.
Don't look for the ACLU to embrace the 2nd Amendment even if the U.S. Supreme Court makes a 100% rock solid finding that it is an individual right. They will simply claim that in can be infringed by "reasonable restrictions".
Do a Google search on "Roger Baldwin" + Communist + ACLU to get a long list of articles.
The ACLU, from time to time, does make positive contributions to law. However it seems these are but mere side effects to their main goal of bringing Socialism to the U.S.
Don't look for the ACLU to embrace the 2nd Amendment even if the U.S. Supreme Court makes a 100% rock solid finding that it is an individual right. They will simply claim that in can be infringed by "reasonable restrictions".
Slugthrower
New member
Collective... Maybe they need a display of our "collective". I wonder if 80 million people told them, "We are the collective an you shall not take them". Bet they would really love that. Just as a bully will pick on one with impunity until he has his backside kicked in. All too soon these people may need to have the "collective" to kick their minor collective rears all across this country. If the million man march worked for another group. Then another one for a different cause should get the point across to their collective stupidity, especially if it was a solid million instead of the half million man march that was.
The ACLU is nothing but a leftist organization posing as patriots. They would have you believe the term "the people" refers to individuals throughout the Bill of Rights and that there are innumerable "freedoms" in the COTUS that are not written into it but when it comes to the one time "the people" is used for a right they don't agree with they call it a collective right... sure, the government needed its right to have guns protected so badly it was put into the COTUS...
No, quite the contrary. According to their own admission, the ACLU board looked at the potential consequences of an individual right to bear arms, decided they didn't like the consequences, and adopted a collective rights view instead. This is the precise kind of preferred results based Constitutional analysis that they've argued against time after time.
So, they are not intellectually incompetent, just intellectually dishonest.
WeedWacker
New member
They had me fooled. Maybe it was the narrow minded statements I heard from them then they say "we are just trying to keep and open mind." Wouldn't being open minded really be using your head to think about the issue instead of joining the other sheeple in acceptance of what you are told?
jakeswensonmt
New member
rant
I assume that you're using the word "liberal" as an insult, which leads me to believe that you label yourself "conservative". Right? You loathe liberals and you're automatically going to vote Republican because you're conservative, right?
The number one "conservative" candidate for 2008 president (Giuliani) is a hardcore 2nd amendment hater. 'Sup with that?
Here in Montana we just elected Jon Tester to the US Senate. He's a Democrat and therefore automatically labeled by the right as a "liberal", yet he is pro-gun, a (true as opposed to that Massachusetts born, rich boy, all hat and no cattle W) rancher and a real gunslinger? 'Sup with that?
Those who lean far to the right have perfected the art of calling anyone who doesn't vote Republican a "liberal" and with the help of Fox News and MSNBC have managed to make the word synonymous with "America-hating P.C. commie". I haven't heard the left using with word "conservative" as an insult the way the right uses the word "liberal". I think that this is partly due to the fact that the word "conservative" doesn't describe the right at all and the word "fascist" is just too strong for everyday use. There is nothing conservative about the current Republican trends towards elitism, huge and intrusive government, enormous spending and debt, elective wars, open borders, erosion of the separation of church and state, the war against the bill of rights, the rise of the police state, and fascist economic and social policies.
All the "liberal" and "conservative" labels are is a way for the right wing extremists to divide and conquer the ordinary people. Most Americans don't fit into either of these groups. Most people who vote Democrat aren't communists, and most who vote Republican aren't fascists.
If you think that the word "fascist" is too strong to describe the Republican parties ideas, then I think you should look up fascism, it is an accurate label and not just an insulting sounding word.
We do need some real conservatism in our government (strong military, fiscal responsibility, secure borders, gun ownership), just as we do need some liberalism (free speech, right to privacy, medicare, social security, religous freedom). Unfortunately, the Republican party as we know it is not currently delivering any of these conservative ideas.
I assume that you're using the word "liberal" as an insult, which leads me to believe that you label yourself "conservative". Right? You loathe liberals and you're automatically going to vote Republican because you're conservative, right?
The number one "conservative" candidate for 2008 president (Giuliani) is a hardcore 2nd amendment hater. 'Sup with that?
Here in Montana we just elected Jon Tester to the US Senate. He's a Democrat and therefore automatically labeled by the right as a "liberal", yet he is pro-gun, a (true as opposed to that Massachusetts born, rich boy, all hat and no cattle W) rancher and a real gunslinger? 'Sup with that?
Those who lean far to the right have perfected the art of calling anyone who doesn't vote Republican a "liberal" and with the help of Fox News and MSNBC have managed to make the word synonymous with "America-hating P.C. commie". I haven't heard the left using with word "conservative" as an insult the way the right uses the word "liberal". I think that this is partly due to the fact that the word "conservative" doesn't describe the right at all and the word "fascist" is just too strong for everyday use. There is nothing conservative about the current Republican trends towards elitism, huge and intrusive government, enormous spending and debt, elective wars, open borders, erosion of the separation of church and state, the war against the bill of rights, the rise of the police state, and fascist economic and social policies.
All the "liberal" and "conservative" labels are is a way for the right wing extremists to divide and conquer the ordinary people. Most Americans don't fit into either of these groups. Most people who vote Democrat aren't communists, and most who vote Republican aren't fascists.
If you think that the word "fascist" is too strong to describe the Republican parties ideas, then I think you should look up fascism, it is an accurate label and not just an insulting sounding word.
We do need some real conservatism in our government (strong military, fiscal responsibility, secure borders, gun ownership), just as we do need some liberalism (free speech, right to privacy, medicare, social security, religous freedom). Unfortunately, the Republican party as we know it is not currently delivering any of these conservative ideas.
Last edited:
They don't defend all but one right. They defend their skewed interpretation of the constitution. A simple look at their stance on the 1st amendment reveals this.
As a matter of principle however, any organization that has ANYTHING to do with NAMBLA isn't a worthy organization period.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html
Try actually reading about what happened instead of assuming. Or do we just pretend to care about freedom?
Last edited by a moderator:
It's like you are unfamiliar with the case you are referring to. Does free speech just apply to those that take your side? Your statement is on par with those made by people that think defense lawyers are scum because they represent scum.
In that particular case, NAMBLA is no more responsible for the murders that occurred than would someone that posted a tutorial on how to be more accurate with a handgun and increase ability to make clean head shots. It is ultimately the responsibility of those that carried out the murders.
Much more important than all else was the need to not establish a precedent in that case.
Everything that NAMBLA represents is odious, no doubt... But remember the good old days when people actually believed such quotes as "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Perhaps those times are behind us.
Back on topic.. the ACLU is neutral on the 2nd amendment. It chooses not to participate. Oddly enough, that is the exact same behavior as the SCOTUS. I believe both are wrong to do this and would prefer to see both get involved.
Without getting sidetracked with NAMBLA or the like, it's fair to say that the ACLU defends those things it considers rights and tries to mold the excercise of those things it considers rights. If the ACLU does not consider something a right (like the RKBA) or wants to regulate how that right is excercised, it will do so.
In North Carolina, there's a school district that went to the ACLU to get approval for a student led prayer function. The ACLU said the function was acceptable, but threatened to sue if teachers attended. Prior restraint on the freedom of assembly? Yup. But the ACLU did it with a straight face, even when suing others for doing so.
The ACLU recently got into hot water for trying to crush dissent within its ranks, and doing backbround checks on members. Violations of freedom of speech, and privacy rights? Again, yes. But the ACLU once again said it was in the right (after lying about it to begin with) although it's sued others for doing the same things.
In North Carolina, there's a school district that went to the ACLU to get approval for a student led prayer function. The ACLU said the function was acceptable, but threatened to sue if teachers attended. Prior restraint on the freedom of assembly? Yup. But the ACLU did it with a straight face, even when suing others for doing so.
The ACLU recently got into hot water for trying to crush dissent within its ranks, and doing backbround checks on members. Violations of freedom of speech, and privacy rights? Again, yes. But the ACLU once again said it was in the right (after lying about it to begin with) although it's sued others for doing the same things.
But that is perfectly consistent: allow freedom of religion, but don't allow government "respecting establishment of religion" via authority figures (teachers)
Can you provide some links to this?
How exactly is rejecting membership based beliefs and history a violation of free speech? Is it not the same as a seminary rejecting atheists?
Privacy rights? Huh? Closest they would defend against is illegal search and seizure, which a background check isn't as far as I know. Are they broadcasting what they find in a background check or posting that info to a web page, cause I would see the irony in that. . .
Limiting the "freedom of speech" of willing members of your group is not violating their freedom of speech. They don't have a right to be in your association. You have the right to associate with people who agree with you, a right they are exercising.
I don't understand why people so often talk about freedoms the government can't encroach on having to be granted by individuals. (I.e. the "freedom of the press" does not mean my freedom to demand that preexisting press publish my opinions, nor does "freedom of speech" mean that the NRA has to allow members that want to ban guns).
You may not like the ACLU being called a Liberal organization with the conotation that Liberal = Wrong but that is the way it is. Sorry but the title Liberal has been perverted into something far away from what it once was and it did not take the right to do it. Blame Ted Kennedy and his crowd for it. As a Libertarian I can see plenty of fellowship with what were REAL Liberals but none with what is now considerred a Liberal. If you want a Liberal/Conservative debate though take it elsewhere.
The ACLU does side with only ONE part of the political spectrum and their decisions are POLITICAL. Their stance on the 2A is based on what they WANT to see, not what is written into the COTUS. The ACLU is not there to defend the COTUS. They are there to drive change towards their political agenda through the use of the courts. Their strategy has long been to subvert those parts of the COTUS throguh judicial activism wher they can get the greatest payout for the least investment. As very left wing lawyers they target leftist judges to legislate from the bench on those issues they consider important.
The ACLU does side with only ONE part of the political spectrum and their decisions are POLITICAL. Their stance on the 2A is based on what they WANT to see, not what is written into the COTUS. The ACLU is not there to defend the COTUS. They are there to drive change towards their political agenda through the use of the courts. Their strategy has long been to subvert those parts of the COTUS throguh judicial activism wher they can get the greatest payout for the least investment. As very left wing lawyers they target leftist judges to legislate from the bench on those issues they consider important.