HOLY STINK! I now view the ACLU in an even WORSE light!

M

Mike Irwin

Staff
I found this quote on their web site...

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to
reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."

Show me where the hell the Constitution talks about personal transportation being the right of a free people.

Wow, talk about unbelievable twisterism!

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
Mike, here is a very good discussion about why driving is a right, and should not be subject to license, just the same as RKBA.

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited July 26, 2000).]
 
I don't know if any of you ever listen to Rick Emerson on talk radio, but he's talk-show guy who specializes in irritating people. Anyway, one day he found a poll, I think it was either Harris or Zogby. They asked people to rate organizations they hated. The ACLU finished first! They were higher than the Christian Coalition, higher than the NRA, higher than HCI.

Emerson was puzzled by this. He asked people to call in and tell him how in the world anyone could be against the ACLU. Unfortunately, I listen to a taped broadcast of the show so I couldn't call in and bring up the 2nd Amendment and why they won't defend it.
 
If we can license and register cars, we can license speech and register mouths, printing presses, broadcasting studios, etc. Tell me speech can't be dangerous.
 
Dean,

I don't buy it. The "right to travel" is isn't impinged if you can't drive a car because you're not licensed. You still have feet, public transportation, a thumb, etc.

If you want to get right down to it, you can say that any law impinges on a "natural right."



------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
"Show me where the hell the Constitution talks about personal transportation being the right of a free people."

The Ninth Amendment. That and the fact that the Constitution grants Congress no authority to regulate travel of citizens.

The Bill of Rights does not list every right, it can't. That is the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments.
 
I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says that we can't require people of Greek descent to notify the government of the names and addresses of everyone they've had contact with in the last year, but I'm quite certain the ACLU would be against that.
 
Don't worry, one day some sickbag will molest a little kid with a gun barrel and then the ACLU will get all civil rights on guns.

Battler.
 
Or you could say:

"The 'right to self-defense' isn't impinged if you can't buy a handgun or rifle because you're not licensed. You still have shotguns, airguns, pepper spray, etc."

Remember, like RickD said, just 'cause it's not listed in the BOR, doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a right.

Mike, by your argument, we could license people who want to use their feet (or any means) to get from here to there.

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited July 27, 2000).]
 
A Driver's License is not needed to own a car or drive it on your own property.
A Driver's License is, however, required to drive it on a public highway. Its purpose is to enforce a standard of training upon those who venture onto the public thoroughfares.
I view the driver's license as being analogous to the Concealed Handgun License.

------------------
"Pathfinders Light the Way!"

[This message has been edited by Allen_Raiford (edited July 27, 2000).]
 
There is no need for a license to drive or carry, the government just thinks there is. As to the training: it's really as simple as Don't do anything that will get someone killed or injured. This applies to both cars and guns.

Traffic laws could still be enforced if there were no driver's licenses. It wouldn't be a free-for-all. There would still be traffic lights, 4 way stops, crosswalks, traffic citations, trials, impounds, driving records, all that stuff.

Gun laws could still be enforced if there were no licenses.

I have a CWP, CCW, CPL, or whatever you call it. There's no training requirement in my state. We don't have problems. Training should not be a requirement for CCW if we're going to require CCW permits/licenses at all.
 
I view the ACLU as a Leftist organization that could correctly be labeled "the media lobby." It exists primarily to serve those news and information companies as well as the entertainment industry that are Leftist also. As a result, expect the ACLU to support a brand of statism involving state control of just about everything except the Leftist media. Statism and private ownership of firearms are incompatible - therefor, the ACLU will never view the 2nd amendment as a guarantee of an individual right!
 
No, licences and registration for cars are for tax collection.

Licences and registration do not road safety make. Been to Italy? They have more expensive and stringent driving tests for licencing, and they drive like maniacs. I race cars; but screamed like a little bit** LITERALLY when being driven around Rome in a taxi.


Battler.
 
Just out of curiosity, how can the ACLU be "neutral" but be for all these restrictions? I guess it would sort of be like if Germany was neutral in the second world war. Lets be honest the reason they see no barriers to licensing and registering firearms ownership is they have no desire to own firearms.

We can speculate if the founding fathers would have wanted us to license vehicles and drivers but anyone with an IQ above a small houseplant knows they intended us to have the unrestricted right to firearms. The reason I say this is because they wrote it down for us

Thanks.
 
And even if they hadn't written it down for us, and hadn't included the sacred 2nd Ammendment, wouldn't you agree that the government still wouldn't have the authority to regulate guns?

It's the same with cars/drivers.
 
Just because someone a long time ago wrote something into law means nothing. The fact that these men were smart, creative, and well educated, means a lot. Above all this, the fact that their Bill of Rights was written to regard the interaction of humans with a human government and doesn't directly address any era-specific technologies, makes the document timeless. The Bill of Rights was not something that some crazy guy wrote down on a roll of toilet paper while sitting in a public bathroom, it is a document made by representatives of seperate colonial governments, who pooled their knowledge and experience for the purpose of ensuring that the fundemental ideals by which a free society must live, would never be destroyed by a tyranny. The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power.

I don't think the founding fathers ever would have expected the American people to have become so apathetic to the point where they wouldn't even bother to vote, nor would even care that essential, and logical rights were being usurped from them. It even baffles me, and I live amongst such people.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 
Battler you are right. Licensing of cars and drivers was and is a revenue measure.... Please don't give the anti's any ideas here... Hey they already outlawed full auto's in the name of taxation.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Mike,

Once again, we agree.

The answer to this issue is simple: There is great hypocrisy in the ACLU’s stance regarding the Second Amendment. Any other civil liberties issue -- real or perceived -- and the ACLU instantaneously becomes a vocal proponent of the individual’s rights. However, the RKBA, which is specifically and clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights, is an anathema to the ACLU’s liberal sensibilities. I guess stalwart defense of civil liberties only applies to those freedoms we find politically correct, rather than all rights. They certainly have opted for a very slippery intellectual slope.
 
deanf- No the Government doesn't have the authority to limit our ownership of firearms, I also don't
think they would have that authority if it wasn't written into the Bill of Rights, but the point is moot as
they did have the foresight to not only put it in the Bill of rights but place it so hight on the list. My
point was they felt it was important enough to write for all to see. I'm not sure how I feel about the
car/driver part as I haven't really given it that much thought
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top