If the ACLU were pro-gun-rights, would you join?

If the ACLU backed the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd, would you join?

  • Yes, I've been waiting for them to do just that, not just defend the other amendments

    Votes: 40 35.4%

  • No, I have additional reasons to not be willing to support them

    Votes: 73 64.6%
  • Total voters
    113
A

azurefly

Moderator
A couple of years ago, my friend (who at the time was a gun owner) and I struck a deal. He was anti-NRA (claiming that their lobbying interferes with the political system as it's supposed to work -- yep, as though HCI et al didn't ever lobby with their lies). I was anti-ACLU (claiming that their position of abandoning the true individual-rights nature of the Second Amendment was negligent of them).

He proposed that for each other's birthday, we buy the other a year's membership in the other's pet organization.

Of course, after the first year, I never re-upped in the ACLU because I feel it's wrong to support them when they won't defend the WHOLE Bill of Rights as they should. I even sent them a reply to one of their membership solicitations with a note saying I was NOT sending money because they were wrong about the Second Amendment. (Some lady there actually sent me a package of anti-gun, "collective rights" articles AND EVEN AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE KELLERMAN STUDY in response!! She was CLEARLY arguing, as an ACLU spokesperson, an anti-gun agenda, not just the standard "it's for the state militia" crap.)


Now several years later, and they still send me solicitations! (I got one just today! I'll be sending it back with another explanation of why they won't get a dime from me.)


So my poll question: We know that the ACLU does not support the right to keep and bear arms, burying it under doublespeak about "state militias" to duck the issue.

IF they were to reverse, and advocate a position in support of an individual right to keep and bear arms, would you pay to join/support the ACLU? Or do you have other stuff against them that would still keep you from joining?

I believe that they do perform a necessary, high-profile function, but I am opposed to them in principle for their negligent stance re: the Second Amendment. If they came around about gun rights, I would join.


-azurefly
 
I consider myself a liberal

and I support the ACLU on most things they defend out of principle, but they are hypocrits... They will defend every part of the bill of rights and constitution but the 2nd.. So I will not support them with money and will every chance I get tell them why. Not because they defend the folks I don't agree with but because they won't take the logical stand on the 2nd.
 
I don't know enough about them to really register an educated opinion. If they ever stomped on any of our amendments then I wouldn't out of principal no matter how their views change. Cause views are like the wind, always changing and shifting. Once your a member, what's to stop them from about facing on their views and then your associated with the enemy for however long your membership lasts.

I don't even know what ACLU stands for. Are they the organization that believes all blacks are incapable of committing crimes? Don't get me wrong some of my closest friends are indeed black, but I don't support any organization that bases their opinions about people simply on skin color.

Like I said I don't know enough to offer a supportive or anti-based opinion that I would put my weight behind. I invite some education on the subject though.:cool:
 
I don't even know what ACLU stands for.
Click to expand...
American Civil Liberties Union.

They are self-styled protectors of the faith - - so to speak...

I think of them as useful annoyances.

I have no qualms about siccing them on someone,,,but I can't in good concience support them.
(a No vote)
 
Besides not supporting the 2nd amendment, they only support the others when it advances their left-wing hate America agenda.
 
No way I could support an organization founded by the Communist Party in this this great country of ours....no way.
 
I'd rather eat a bullet

Citing the First Amendment they defended NAMBLA in case you didn't know North American Man/Boy Love association. Whose goal, according to their web page description, "is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships." They successfully argued the Boy Scouts were a religious group and therefore should not be allowed to lease a city park for their scouting activities. Real class organization if you ask me:barf:.
 
Anyone who voted yes(and isn't a Democrat) just simply isn't paying attention. They are so off base on issue after issue. Sure there is 1 good for every 10 bad, but please. Just the FACT they they are defending NAMBLA:barf: Pro Bono should be enough for anybody NOT to support them---unless you are a pedophile!!!!!:barf: :barf:
 
The ACLU has also defended racists. You would have to be a little wrong in the head to believe that the ACLU defends the free speech of NAMBLA and the Klan because they approve of either.

The ACLU appears to take cases on the their LEGAL merits. As they seem to be much more effective at defending the legal basis of rights than the NRA is, I would be pleased to have them fighting to guarantee those rights with the blind zeal they bring scummy cases with important affects on law.

Ideally, we could use a Civil Liberty body that does all the amendments without coming off like an NRA proxy. Such a body would force some of the liberals to come over just based on the "rightness" of the overall cause.


I think one of our biggest problems is the bare lip service we pay to civil liberties in general. Arguing for due process, free speech and gun rights should all go together, but more often than not the people that rage loudest about their rights are pleased to limit others. That's sad.
 
I don't care if they represented neo-nazi's or klansmen. They just want to push their Anti-Christian, Anti-American, communist socialist agenda. Maybe I'm wrong in the head but anybody who supports child molestation is sick in the head as well.

From NAMBLA's website:barf: . Made me sick to have to visit that website. If your planning a trip to rape children be carefull:barf: Yeah anybody that could even defend this peice of crap orginazation should rot in hell with the molesters

"In 1771 Captain Cook, on his visit to the Friendly Islands (now known as Tonga), heard the Polynesian inhabitants refer to certain things or actions as taboo. We have him to thank for the universal adoption of the word. But why was the term needed in the first place? Every culture has always had its own word for "forbidden" which is what "taboo" actually meant. The answer lies in the fact that the things the Polynesians considered "taboo" were thought of as the irrational prohibitions of an inferior culture. Such ethnocentric bias is universal. What is prohibited at one time or in one place can easily be considered as an irrational aversion or a "taboo" at another time or place. We tend to be blind to our own taboos and invent rationales for seeing them as completely reasonable. Boy lovers are no strangers to this blind spot in American society. Affection for a boy not one's direct relative is at best considered strange and suspicious. Add to it the slightest erotic dimension and the consequences can be calamitous. Taboos are irrational and so are the punishments inflicted by the societies that hold them. In the United States, the manufactured fear and aversion to man/boy love has exploded to unbelievable proportions. Police agencies, no longer finding "victims," are busy entrapping boy lovers by posing themselves as "victims." The scams are conducted almost exclusively on the Internet. The newest entrapment twist involves enticing individuals into trips abroad. Everyone should be aware that even planning such a trip with the intention of sexual encounters prohibited in the United States subjects the individual to Draconian Federal charges. The fact that this legal invention borders on mind control should not fool anyone into thinking that the law cannot be enforced. Taboos always trump common sense. Not since the Roman Empire have the consequences of defying the state been as horrendous. Love is blind and "the love that dare not speak its name" is no exception. We just hope that our warning will shine a light bright enough to make the blind see the danger in front of their noses. There is a saying that God looks after children, fools and drunkards. It is unlikely that this is any longer true for those belonging to the last two categories. Unfortunately, we do get some letters and e-mails from fools. They are always indistinguishable from police entrappers."
 
They could strictly interpret the 2A as it was originally written and intended and I still could not support them... The ACLU is not a defender of Constitutional rights as they would have you believe. Their goal is to bring about social change to fit their ideal society through judicial intervention. The main tool of their trade is Judicial Activism.

By focusing on judges who feel as they do and trumpetting the need for the judiciary to act as the lever that brings about societal change they are underminint the very basis of the Constitution and the separation of powers.

The question is moot though. The ACLU will never support the 2A. The people who think they should or are puzzeled as to why they do not do not understand what the purpose of the organization is. It is NOT a watchdog for personal liberties as specified in the Constitution. They are social architecs using the COTUS as the tool of their choice when it suits them. As 2A issues are NOT a part of their real goal they will never champion a 2A cause.
 
Handy---You would have to be a little wrong in the head to believe that the ACLU defends the free speech of NAMBLA and the Klan because they approve of either


What difference does it make whether or not they approve?:mad: Not to mention they are doing it Pro Bono! My neighbor can be the nicest guy in the world--helpful, kind etc... but if he also happens to be a Pedophile then all the other qualities are negated. Another words---doesn't matter 1 lick if they do some good, the fact that they oppose the 2nd and freely support NAMBLA makes them the enemy of the people!
 
NAMBLA's site makes me sick :barf:

Pedophillia is a mental disorder contrary to what NAMBLA is trying to say.

The term paedophilia erotica was coined in 1896 by the Vienna psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his writing Psychopathia Sexualis. He gives the following characteristics:

* the sexual interest is toward children, either prepubescent or at the beginning of puberty
* the sexual interest is the primary one, that is, exclusively or mainly toward children
* the sexual interest remains over time
Click to expand...

The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision has in its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":

* Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
* The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
* The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12 or 13-year-old.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

And to think ALCU supports them :barf: I am all for freedom of speech and all but supporting a illegal and morally wrong thing makes me sick :barf:

I wouldn't want to know what I'd do and probrobly the majority of the forum members will do to someone that even tried touching there younger childern. :cool:

Dimitri
 
I think one of our biggest problems is the bare lip service we pay to civil liberties in general. Arguing for due process, free speech and gun rights should all go together, but more often than not the people that rage loudest about their rights are pleased to limit others. That's sad.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Which is why the ACLU is so sad. They pay attention to causes which will garner them attention or facilitate their agenda. They ignore those which don't. So, that puts them right in the category of those who pay "lip service" to civil liberties.

As for the 1st Amendment, there's a major distinction between supporting a group seeking to march and disseminate their views (such as the Klan) and those seeking to assist criminal acts (the NAMBLA case).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top