The ACLU is worried about your privacy. Over the top, or legitimate concern? (Demo)

L

Long Path

New member
A friend sent me a link to this: A Look Into The Future.

According to the text that follows the "movie,"
A dangerous program – ominously called the Matrix – is being proposed by a handful of states in conjunction with the federal government. Unfortunately it’s no Hollywood invention -- this Matrix would compile your personal information into a giant database that law enforcement agents and government contractors can use to search through information about your private life and investigate your activities.
Click to expand...

They go on:
According to news reports and internal government documents, the Matrix (which stands for “Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange”) is an effort to combine state government records, such as driver’s license information, with commercially available data to create a vast database capable of compiling and analyzing a profile of every American.

While the private company that runs the program has been very secretive about what data MATRIX contains, government sources report that it includes names and address of family members, property ownership, marine vessels, bankrupcies, liens and judgments, voter registrations, and criminal offender information. However, given the amount of information that is available in today’s commercial databases, even more details of our private lives might be captured and catalogued. Indeed, the Matrix materials boast of having access to 20 billion records.
Click to expand...

The most interesting part is this:
The database will collect and centralize an amazing array of your personal information.
News reports indicate that the database would include driver’s license photographs, the names and addresses of family members, gun licenses, voter registration, court records and a vast array of other private details. And, just as there are errors in credit reports, this giant database will be compiled with information from a multitude of error-prone sources. Incorrect information could bring you to the attention of the authorities even if you have not done anything wrong.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

Funny, wasn't the ACLU against private ownership of firearms, and don't they support gun registration? See, if you don't have to register them, the registration doesn't get put in the system. . .


My alarm level is mighty low on this one-- we've needed a better program to track what is already being tracked. Criminal histories and driving histories are already tracked, but the centralization isn't great (Everyone uses a different format, and it comes up different), causing some criminals to slip through the cracks. As for court judgements, those are matters of publilc record already.

Where they're making a leap is that the pizza place would get to have access to the national records, and that those national records would include specifics of a citizen's purchases.

Discussion?
 
Information is power, so those in power will always seek more of it. It makes sense to start things out at the point where it won't raise anyone's personal alarms. Then it's just a matter of incrementalism.

NFA '34 was a tool to stop crime. Most people didn't own a machine gun, so few alarms went off. Then we had '68, '86, '94, etc. Next thing you know, if you own a gun the pizza delivery man won't come to your house anymore... :(

Or am I being paranoid... :confused:

-Dave
 
It seems like the only way to remain "anonymous" these days is to buy everything in cash, buy all your guns from private citizens at gunshows, and ride a bike everywhere instead of taking a vehicle... Oh yeah, and get your job using an alias. :-\
 
Privacy, what little might be left thereof, is a very legitimate concern, whether brought up by the ACLU, The John Birch Society or ANYONE else.

It is also something that the American People, as a whole, be they gun owners or otherwise, should long since been concerned about, as well as having done SOMETHING to protect. To many have done NOTHING, which is a tale all to familiar.

If it takes a mob like the ACLU to wake people up, at least something has served that valuable purpose.
 
There's two ways of looking at this: A further intrusion into individual privacy.
-OR-
The government getting its act together and using one database, instead of 20 different ones that don't talk to each other. Among other things, this would help prevent being incorrectly turned down on a Brady check, or having the police bust down the door of the wrong Mr. Jones.

The problem here isn't the merging of data, but the very existance of some of it, like "gun licenses".


Overall, I like the ACLU. They take things a little far, but it is hard to be adament about your mission and not end up on the extreme at times. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to effectively counter their extreme opposites. I'd consider membership if they'd change their firearm policy.
 
The last word on the ACLU position....

I want the ACLU in my corner when my civil rights are violated. I'll depend on Congress to insure my 2nd Amendment rights, until they lose the last shred of spine.... which won't be long.
The Supreme Court has been more hostile to gun rights than the ACLU.


URL: http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

Gun Control
March 4, 2002

BACKGROUND The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.


Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
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.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."


U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.
 
Given their tendency to interpret things the way they see fit, I don't want the ACLU anywhere near me. A good idea gone bad...very bad.

John
 
All (ok most :rolleyes: ) junior high kids know that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution represents Rights held by the PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! The aclu, batf, and everyone else that has gone mad in this world wants us to believe that all of the Bill of Rights except the 2nd refers to the people of this Country and that the Founding Fathers meant for the 2nd to be about states right to own weopons :barf: . News flash : The State Has NO Rights listed in the constitution, only powers given and or recognized. Whenever the People of a State were the suject of the clause the word "rights" is used and for the government the word "powers" denotes what would be similar to peoples' "rights". This is consistent throughout the doucument. Government has no "right" to tax us. They do have the "power to tax" as listed in the USC. We need to go on the offensive before we find ourselves defensless. Easy answer have Congress redefine the term "arms" as it is written in the USC to only pertain to that whitch can be individually deployed(no explosives) and recognize the individual "right" that we all have. If no, take them to court for not protecting us from all the crime we have today. The "powers" of government end squarely where we limit them. P.S What happens when the matrix(beast) confuses this John Doe with that one? Suddenly his highest criminal offense goes from J-walking to "cop killer" on a sytem error. Lets's give "murphy" more of a playground. Unless the tech is flawless (nothing made by man can be infaliable) this could be a nightmare similar to the Houston 911 system overhaul and the lite rail. Who pays for this new beauracracy and how deep are "our" pockets. Funny thing about government is the only way out is usually deeper in :eek: Bad Government Is the giant Anaconda.....its weight and power will crush the breathe from your lungs taking the will to fight... swallow you whole making you a part of it.... and when through with you.... turn you into what it thought of you the whole time. Think about it. :(
 
johnbt

If you visit the web site, you could dispel many of your misconceptions about what the ACLU is and is not.
Some people are more comfortable with their own myths...
Your choice.
Me, I'll take the ACLU as my advocate when the government acts like royalty.
 
jailmedic:

Re the ACLU on firearms and related rights, and your references to what appear to be their stated positions, their statements regarding possession of missles, rockets, torpedoes and other HEAVY WEAPONS are so far off the wall as to render them unworthy of comment, unless I've misunderstood your references. Have I? If so, please clarify for me. They didn't come close to understanding Miller either, and seem unaware of U.S. History.
 
ACLU must speak for itself....

I would not pretend to explain the positions published on their web site. They are there for anyone to interpret.
I did not see them as any more hostile than the Supremes when it comes to individual rights.
I suspect you are being too literal in your criticism of the references to military weapons. But if I were able to articulate their position to your satisfaction, I might have yet another career, no? I guess I'm "stuck" here. :)
 
"We believe that the constitutional right to speech is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain public media outlets to assure their own propoganda as against the central government's. In today's world, the idea of individual speech is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require speech devices much more powerful than home computers, ink pens, and independent free radio to overcome the propoganda of the central government. The ACLU therefore believes that the First Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to spread political dissent or ideas, or comment on government action, nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of speech, such as licensing before being able to advocate a position."

The ACLU is a demented joke on the issue of the RKBA, and hence a demented joke in toto. More hypocrisy one cannot imagine. Selective liberties.

Back to the original discussion....
 
Citation please....

First Freedom, sir:
You presented your post in quotation marks as if it were from the ACLU site.
The "quotation" you copied resembles nothing I have ever seen on the ACLU national site, not does it reflect the general statement of free speech position from any state site I am familiar with.
If you have a specific citation and reference, I will certainly review it, if not, it sounds like so much fantasy.
You are welcome to demonize the ACLU with their own words, just don't fabricate something that sounds good. Too much like the current government for my liking.
 
Please tell me why?

Alan, you stated that the ACLU position paper indicated "they didn't understand Miller." and "they were unaware of U.S. history."
Please detail why you think so?
 
jailmedic:

It's been a while since I read Miller however it was my understanding that the court ruled that, and the following is not an exact quite, a sawed off or short barreled shotgun did not contribute to the efficient functioning of the militia. I find this strange, for such weapons have long been military issue, as history clearly shows. See WW 1 and any number if military actions in Central America and the Carribean during the years between the wars. Could the ACLU be unaware of history? Also, given that Miller was not represented before The Court, how they might have ruled, having had the benefit of counsels efforts is open to speculation. Has the ACLU forgotten this too.

Additionally, I believe materials you posted indicated ACLU's position re firearms was that the constitution granted the right of states to maintain a militia, rather than providing any sort of individual right. Given that in every other instance in the constitution where the term "the people" appears, it has been long accepted that the term refered to individuals, their contention of "collective meaning" re firearms seems strained, to say the very least. Seems as if the ACLU and some few others, in claiming that in The Second Amendment, the same words had an entirely different meaning. I find this a ridiculous contention, however I could be wrong. I do not think that I am wrong.
 
I could be wrong, but I believe that Freedom's quote is a parody of the ACLU's quote on gun control:

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
 
Parody, indeed!

Alan and Jeff-
Thanks for your posts.
I read a synopsis of Miller again last night and find, as most have, in my lay opinion, the case gave support to both sides of the issue - at least both sides have claimed such.
A review of documents which lead to the drafting of the 2nd reveal that there was disagreement even then on what constituted a "militia" - individual or collective "people"....

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
http://www.singmind.com/singleminded/data/millerus.htm
Like most modern debates of the Founder's language, we parse them in a frame of reference which includes inventions and conventions not anticipated in the late 1700's.
If one accepts the wide definition of "arms" and "militia", then it is hard to argue for control of any weapons of war whatsoever, meaning why should I not posess a Stinger or its equivalent? Or A/P mines? Or mass quantities of explosives?
Surely no one beleives that would be a good idea?
The old saw "An armed society is a polite society." - denies the facts. I would prefer that someone be rude than politely destroy my home with a TOW missile.
Is there a line to draw?
Who draws it?
The Feds?
The states?
 
The line was drawn quite clearly by the second amendment and has been being blurred by the courts ever since. Are the PEOPLE who are guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unlawful searches and seizures, or the PEOPLE who are guaranteed the right to peacably assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances, not the very same PEOPLE who are guaranteed the RIGHT to keep and bear arms?

The Revolutionary War started when Britian tried to confiscate artillery from private citizens. The Revolutionary War was waged sucessfully by the colonists in part because they DID possess artillery! The second amendment was written by those who were providing their decendents the means to accomplish the very thing they, themselves had just succeeded in doing.


So...all the regulating of weaponry we have come to consider " a good idea" is directly contrary to the second amendment. I don't have a tow missle, AP mines or large quantities of explosives. Even were it legal, I probably wouldn't have them. BUT, my crazy neighbor has no assurance that if he threatens me with his, I won't acquire some and do the same to him. The framers of the Constitution put in place a system of checks and balances we consider essential in our system to maintain the people's control of the government. The second amendment is the foremost of those checks and balances. It's not about hunting, target shooting, gun collecting or even personal self-defense. The security of a free state requires it's people to be armed. Why? To guarantee that "free" part.



The second amendment has said that all along. Some in the government don't like it. I wonder why?
 
Jail Medic, Jail Medic.......response to 1st page post

You are smarter than that! Can someone name for me any explosive devices that the colonists possesed! Not one by todays BATF standards. Cannons Dont Count as they don't actually use exploding 'munitions( they are however destructive devices). Using this logic as it pertains to the Second Amm. every "type of arm" the colonist had at their disposal should never be denied to the American public. Rifles, shotguns, handguns and anything used as an arm upgrade made to their designs are the Birth Right Of Our Country(not just flintlocks). The answer is so simple that we can't even see it. A gun is a gun is a gun. A weapon is anything that I use offensively or defensively against an attacker(a toothpick to a .50 bmg or whatever). An assault weapon is anything used in the commission of the crime of assault(again toothpick to a .50bmg or whatever). I call lame duck(fowl,foul :D ) about the explosives issue and the Second. Firstly, no one would sell to you. Secondly, as shown by miller the Second only pertains to "militia arms" whitch up until recently(few centuries...war started when man did after all), explosive devices were not in use and are not protected as firearms are. Flame all you want, If a line has to be drawn take stuff I have no use for,area to train with, and no money for.... ;) Third Do you really think that if any justified armed conflict happened stateside that the army, navy, airforce, and marines would just blindly obliterate their own people under the quote,"Just doing my job."? Explosive devices are a red herring/non issue to me now. It just help to cloud the water on an already convoluted issue, firearms. PS When was the last time a citizen attacked someone with a frag grenade, mortar, m2o3, ap mines, a TOW missile, a m79,Surface to air missile, rocket launcher, or anything classified as an explosive device for that matter. Explosives and the 2nd, a non issue. For any not getting what I am saying.....Firearms go bang..bang...bang...and are protected by Constitution :p ....Explosives go BOOOOOM!!!!!!!! and are not protected, mmmkay(now just to get Congress to agree with me :rolleyes: )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top