ACLU & Second Amendant

One thing to note is that while the ACLU takes a "neutral" stance on the RKBA (and yes, I use that term loosely), they will actually defend gun owners if the authorities take action that contradicts the law. An example is given in this thread, where Texas DA's were detaining/arresting gunowners who were within their rights under the law.

Granted, that was the ACLU of Texas, but still.
 
If they are proponents of civil liberties, wouldnt you think they would support candidates that support the second amendment?
Click to expand...

Silly, naive poster! (Well, not really...) The Democrats don't support "civil liberties" at all. They support whatever platform they think has the highest chance of getting them elected. Their job is to cater to the voting public. And, there is, I'm sad to say, a fairly large percentage of our public who feels that guns are bad, and so are the people who own them. The Democratic National Convention caters to these people, in hopes that they can form a majority sufficient to be elected to office.

Likewise, several members of the Republican party cater to the "from my cold, dead hands" crowd, in hopes that they can scrape together enough people to get into office. That's the SOLE function of these policy-makers: To say whatever they need to say in order to get elected.

The ACLU Democrats support ONLY AS MUCH of the Bill of Rights as is necessary to garner favor with the hippie liberals. Likewise, the Republicans support ONLY AS MUCH of the tenants of militant fundamentalist Christianity (For the last time, is we IS or is we AIN'T from MONKEYS!?!?) as is necessary to garner favor with the red-meat conservatives.

The SUPREME error in politics is to EVER be lulled into thinking that your candidate ACTUALLY BELIEVES the things he/she says about life, liberty, and the pursuit of more biscuits. It is the pursuit of more biscuits that drives these statements, and they serve only to further the pursuit for the candidate!
 
The ACLU Democrats support ONLY AS MUCH of the Bill of Rights as is necessary to garner favor with the hippie liberals.
Click to expand...

Can you post some examples (aside obviously from 2nd amendment issues) where the ACLU doesn't support the Bill of Rights (in a reasonable way)?

Thanks..
 
But that is perfectly consistent: allow freedom of religion, but don't allow government "respecting establishment of religion" via authority figures (teachers)
Click to expand...

Do me a favor and go re-read the 1st amendment and then come back and tell me what it ACTUALLY says, because the ACLU's interpretation (as well as yours) is way off the mark.
 
In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they just defend those who do:rolleyes:

Thats about the weakest excuse I've ever heard and this isn't a free speach issue. Child pornography is illegal. Molesting/raping a child is illegal. Members of Nambla have been arrested time and again in kiddie porn stings. We arent talking about the theoretical here, we are talking about real people advocating real crimes, and acting upon them.

Thats what the ACLU is standing up for.
 
Yeah, they just defend those who do

Thats about the weakest excuse I've ever heard and this isn't a free speach issue. Child pornography is illegal. Molesting/raping a child is illegal. Members of Nambla have been arrested time and again in kiddie porn stings. We arent talking about the theoretical here, we are talking about real people advocating real crimes, and acting upon them.

Thats what the ACLU is standing up for.
Click to expand...
Obviously someone didn't read the details of the case.
 
Thats about the weakest excuse I've ever heard and this isn't a free speach issue. Child pornography is illegal. Molesting/raping a child is illegal. Members of Nambla have been arrested time and again in kiddie porn stings. We arent talking about the theoretical here, we are talking about real people advocating real crimes, and acting upon them.

Thats what the ACLU is standing up for.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. The case was about murder. Members of NAMBLA deservedly should be arrested for their actions, just not for murder.
 
Do me a favor and go re-read the 1st amendment and then come back and tell me what it ACTUALLY says, because the ACLU's interpretation (as well as yours) is way off the mark.
Click to expand...

Are you daft? It is CONSISTENT WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION. What does it matter if their interpretation is off the mark or not?
 
What does it matter if their interpretation is off the mark or not?
Click to expand...

It matters because the ACLU uses court action to enforce their views.


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.
Click to expand...

I understand the distinction between private and governmental action. But I was pointing out that the ACLU, which has stretched to find governmental action in various areas so as to regulate private activities it disagrees with, crushes dissent (not about beliefs, but about doing things such as background checks on members, activities among other organizations which the ACLU railed against) amongst its members. The institutional personality of this organization (at least within the governing board) is about strict control. Don't expect that to stop once the boardroom doors are opened.
 
The ACLU was founded by communists as a communist support organization.
Click to expand...

And the republican party resembles nothing of what it was 30 years ago. Funny how that happens, huh?

Unless somehow communism is in diametric opposition to the bill of rights, I fail to see your point.
 
For those of you who haven't read it, the first amendment states...

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Being the dumb yokel I am, to me that means congress can't make a law to establish a national religion and they cant make a law preventing people from practing their religion.

This DOESN'T say ANYTHING about government "respecting establishment of religion" via authority figures.


So yes, the ACLU has bastardized the constitution to fit their own means. Thats why crosses, nativity scenes and christmas trees can't be on public land according to them.
 
Members of NAMBLA deservedly should be arrested for their actions, just not for murder.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like advocating sexual relations with minors. I am fully aware of the details of the case in question. That really doesn't matter to me.

Its kinds like if Charles Manson walked inot my office and wanted me to represent him because he had a legitimate case of police brutality. He may have a solid case, but I'm still not going to deal with him both becasue of who and more importantly WHAT he is.

Nambla is no different. Its a group of people that are doing a tightrope act with the law, and using loopholes in the system to advocate the most vile things I've ever seen. ANY organization that has anything to do with them deserves everyone's contempt.
 
And the republican party resembles nothing of what it was 30 years ago. Funny how that happens, huh?

Unless somehow communism is in diametric opposition to the bill of rights, I fail to see your point.
Click to expand...

uh, private property as recognized per the Bill of Rights.

vs.

collectively owned state property assigned by the state as the government sees fit per Communism.

I would say that is pretty diametrically opposed.
 
That really doesn't matter to me.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is appropriate to stand behind the principal of the law, more than the defendant.

Choose whether to represent Charlie Manson or not, it doesn't make you a better person either way.

Just remember it is a personal choice you make. Others may make a different choice and it doesn't make them better or worse, either.
 
uh, private property as recognized per the Bill of Rights.

vs.

collectively owned state property assigned by the state as the government sees fit per Communism.

I would say that is pretty diametrically opposed.
Click to expand...

The constitution is silent as to the method by which you attain your property. Communism is a method of distribution and does not necessarily remove the concept of private property.

Please note that I am not condoning or condemning communism, merely pointing out that there is nothing (un/anti)-constitutional about it. It is perfectly reasonably under the constitution via the amendment process to become a dictatorship, too.


Anyway, the point that matters is not whether the ACLU was founded as a communist entity (though interesting and worthwhile to keep in mind) but whether it currently acting in a way that preserves the BoR. My personal opinion is that the good it does outweighs any evil. If they want to remain silent on the 2nd amendment, then they should remain silent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top