Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/21/2006 3:52:17 PM EDT
This passage was buried in their site. It explains their beliefs on the second amendment. Basically, they believe the 2A is an archaic relic of legislation, and that since people can't be trusted with military-grade weapons (i.e. nukes, bazookas, etc...), that they should be licensed and regulated.

Read for yourself...



Gun Control (3/4/2002)


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.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:53:44 PM EDT
[#1]
I didn't know the local funshop sold bazookas, missiles and nuclear warheads.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:55:11 PM EDT
[#2]
I already hated them, now I know why.  
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:56:15 PM EDT
[#3]

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one,


That's whats wrong, right there. They cannot comprehend what they read.


I wonder how many of the ACLU national board members own firearms. That would be an interesting fact to find.

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:02:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Cliff Notes: If it's liberal and libertarian, we're for it. If it's stuff that conservative/libertarians would like,we're against it. Do you think gun ownership is a personal right? Too bad. Do you think that the "seperation of church and state" means "no state church",but that public leaders should be able to express their faith in the line of duty if with a majority of like faith? Too bad. Do you think that abortion is a question of a child's rights vs their mother's right,not simply a matter of the woman alone? Once again,too bad.Do you think that some criminals deserve death,rather than lifetime support on your coin? Too bad again!

Once in a great while they'll quietly support conservative church groups. Frequently they openly support whack job so called "right wing extremists" like the Klan or Neo Nazis in order to bolster their claim that they're not just everyday leftist shills.
ACLU= IMHO


Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:02:34 PM EDT
[#5]
Yeah - they are full of shit on that one, and many of them KNOW it, but they just don't want to deal with it.  


There's a big ACLU thread already going on today  A lot of good info in that thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=492956
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:05:35 PM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:
Yeah - they are full of shit on that one, and many of them KNOW it, but they just don't want to deal with it.  


There's a big ACLU thread already going on today  A lot of good info in that thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=492956


Yeah they know they are full of shit on it. There was an article I read that was written by an ACLU type called the Ugly Second Amendment.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:06:21 PM EDT
[#7]
The Individual's Right to Bear Arms
by  (May 22, 2003)

Article website address: http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=2792

Summary: 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.

[CapMag.com]Last December, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California's ban on assault weapons.
Writing for the Court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt held that the Second
Amendment only protected the state's "collective" right to own firearms,
and that the Constitution recognized no individual right to bear arms.

Earlier this month, the full Ninth Circuit denied a motion to set aside
the panel's opinion and rehear the case.  Four judges dissented from this
decision and one of the judge's opinions, that of Circuit Judge Alex
Kozinski, is reprinted below--Nicholas Provenzo

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are
sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado,
that "speech, or . . . the press" also means the Internet, and that
"persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths.
When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good
social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical
constitutional phrases--or even the white spaces between lines of
constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none
too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally
ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-boards for
major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be
cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of
the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If
we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give
broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals
from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such
provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while
discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying
the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to
constitutionalize our personal preferences.

The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to
individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and
choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second
Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected
portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an
individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to
ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller (1939) did not hold that
the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even
though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief.
The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on
the merits after finding no evidence that Miller's weapon--a sawed-off
shotgun--was reasonably susceptible to militia use. We are bound not only
by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller's claim was
dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why
would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was
suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller's
test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior
court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last
visited a constitutional provision.

The majority falls prey to the delusion--popular in some circles--that
ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be
far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the
government payroll. But the simple truth--born of experience--is that
tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed
people.
Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of
choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In
Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those
found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by
contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against
racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the
institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to
resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) (finding black citizenship
unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms
wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed
blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million
armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history--Stalin's atrocities,
the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few--were
perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well
have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended
victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the
Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw
Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful
of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have
been herded into cattle cars.


My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history.
The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories
of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was
too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for
those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have
failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences
those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can
find no one to enforce their decrees.
However improbable these
contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free
people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the
people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The
purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and
they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the
panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people
themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

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 sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion--the mountain of verbiage
it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of
constitutional text--refutes its thesis far more convincingly than
anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second
Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying
to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed.




About the Author: Alex Kozinski is a U.S. Circuit Judge.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:08:05 PM EDT
[#8]

...

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.



i believe we do have a right to own any of those, along with whatever else we can afford. also tanks. damn i want a tank.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:08:34 PM EDT
[#9]

If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.


The right to keep and drive cars isn't a Constitutional right, you fuckhead.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:10:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Sounds like an organization that needs to be infiltrated and changed within.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:11:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:11:55 PM EDT
[#12]

Quoted:
Sounds like an organization that needs to be infiltrated and changed within.


Or gunned down from without in the general chaos to come.  I don't think it's much of a secret anymore who's side they are on.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:47:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:53:51 PM EDT
[#14]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:57:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:58:40 PM EDT
[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.
- Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU


[ACLU supporter]  Oh, but they're not REALLY like that.  They are nice people who just want all people to have basic rights.  [/ACLU supporter]



Some things ARE simply black and white.  

Next week:  Labor unions weren't founded by Communists and aren't socialistic in nature.  


Ouch.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:59:33 PM EDT
[#17]
The TX ACLU is often at hearings in support of pro-gun bills.  They support RKBA here.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:01:07 PM EDT
[#18]
Sort of the same lines of in the USA you are free.
(to do only what you are allowed to do)
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:02:20 PM EDT
[#19]

Quoted:

I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.
- Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU


And by 1940 he was not a communist and banned communists from holding positions within the ACLU.

Nice try though.


eta: that comment also is not referring to the ACLU FWIW.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:03:19 PM EDT
[#20]
I've never understood how intellectually dishonest some people are.  How can "The People" in all the other amendments mean individuals, but in the Second "The People" means the state.  I just can't understand how anybody with a shred of honesty can contort their logic to such a monsterous degree.

Oh wait.  I said anyone with a shred of honesty.  That leaves out the ACLU.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:04:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:05:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Karl Marx proved you can kill millions with a printing press.


GR
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:06:42 PM EDT
[#23]
They say they are "nuetral" but appearently they are not. Even if they were "nuetral" thats as good as being an anti.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:07:01 PM EDT
[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yeah - they are full of shit on that one, and many of them KNOW it, but they just don't want to deal with it.  


There's a big ACLU thread already going on today  A lot of good info in that thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=492956


Yeah they know they are full of shit on it. There was an article I read that was written by an ACLU type called the Ugly Second Amendment.


The ACLU refuses to take a 2nd ammendment case so that means........
Let's guess!  They are pro second ammendment?
                  They are anti-second ammendment?
                  Aw-gee, they just don't want to deal with it?

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:09:25 PM EDT
[#25]
I made this a while back in that motivational poster thread. I think it goes well here.




Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:09:43 PM EDT
[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.
- Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU


[ACLU supporter]  Oh, but they're not REALLY like that.  They are nice people who just want all people to have basic rights.  [/ACLU supporter]



Some things ARE simply black and white.  

Next week: Labor unions weren't founded by Communists and aren't socialistic in nature.  


Labor unions existed before Karl Marx was even born, so...

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:11:10 PM EDT
[#27]

Quoted:
I made this a while back in that motivational poster thread. I think it goes well here.


photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=45828



M1919A6 Stinger, nice.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:13:09 PM EDT
[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I made this a while back in that motivational poster thread. I think it goes well here.


photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=45828



M1919A6 Stinger, nice.


the 1919 in the pic belongs to arfcommer soldierforhire

The rest belongs to about half the LA HTF members
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:15:21 PM EDT
[#29]
This surprises anyone why?

If you ever looked ino the ACLU's history , you'd know they were founded as a Adjunct of the American Communist Party, to change our laws to Marxist Socialism through the courts using our own system against us.

The Communist party of the United States< never ceased to exist like they claim they did they just took over the Demcratic Left, to sneak socialism in under the guise they are just good mainstream thinkers of the Democratic party.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:17:05 PM EDT
[#30]
That's fine.  I think the right to free speech and assembly is a collective right and not a personal right.  'People' is a plural word and refers to more than one.  Thus it is clear that we are only free to speak as a group not as an individual and that further the only groups authorized to speak would obviously be those controlled by state and local governments upon whom the limit of not violating the afore mentioned rights were placed.  This is perfectly logical and I could write 5 or 10 pages more of this horseshit with a few hours and enough references.

As such I think the author of this article should be licensed and regulated by both state and federal officals and possibly cities too.  A background check should be required and any local state or federal official should be able to deny the license for any or no reason at all.  I'm sure he would be in favor of this given the prominate place writing and communications have taken in most major voilent conflicts in the world.  One could argue that without words it would be impossible for large groups to fight effectively and thus might well end the kind of inflamitory remarks as those that started the Revolution, or the Spanish American War.  My god, who checks these people's facts given the power of these writen and spoken words!!!!

If we can require a license to start a business, we can require one to speak.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:18:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:22:35 PM EDT
[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
And by 1940 he was not a communist and banned communists from holding positions within the ACLU.

Nice try though.

And surely you can back that up, right?


It's in Wikipedia, if you want to read all about it.  Though I'm not sure you're interested in anything that doesn't support what you already believe.

The ACLU is full of a lot of dumb socialist leftists, I'm not going to deny that.  My observation is that they are pretty much the only group that actually does anything useful to keep the government in check (besides groups like the NRA which only handle one issue).  Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, but they are right enough of the time that I don't want them to disappear because then we're left with nobody who even cares.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:23:09 PM EDT
[#33]

Quoted:
I've never understood how intellectually dishonest some people are.  How can "The People" in all the other amendments mean individuals, but in the Second "The People" means the state.  I just can't understand how anybody with a shred of honesty can contort their logic to such a monsterous degree.

Oh wait.  I said anyone with a shred of honesty.  That leaves out the ACLU.


Just definition 2 of the same word.  They don't even say the "militia" is the National Guard...they simply say "militia".  

The problem here is what is the definition of "well regulated militia".  Is it strictly defined in the Constitution?  I'm not a Constitutional expert, so I don't know.  Can your neighborhood form a militia?  The Constiutution does say "well regulated", but what does "well regulated" mean?

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:23:47 PM EDT
[#34]
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.

-ACLU
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:26:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:28:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:28:57 PM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The ACLU is full of a lot of dumb socialist leftists, I'm not going to deny that.  


So we should join them because . . . ?  


I don't care if you join, I'm not a member.  I'm just saying I don't want to see them go anywhere because then the government has nobody to sue it when it does screwed up stuff.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:29:33 PM EDT
[#38]

Quoted:
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.


That's true. Fortunately, it does protect the individual's right to own all kinds of arms.

It's something I disagree with the ACLU on. That alone shouldn't discount other freedoms they've succesfully defended. I hate their official position on the 2A, but dang it - they're not wrong every damn time. Sometimes (pretty often as near I can figure) they're dead nuts on. I like that.

What's right is what's right, and what's wrong is what's wrong. I'm perfectly capable of calling the ACLU out when I think they've got it wrong, and applauding them when I think they've got it right. No big deal. I'm not going to damn the entire organization nor discount any right thing they stand for, over one opinion I happen to strongly oppose.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:31:42 PM EDT
[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's in Wikipedia, if you want to read all about it.

Thanks, but you have to admit that wikipedia isn't exactly a definitive source, right? It's open to anyone to edit any entry. I wonder who regularly checks and edits entries associated with communists?


Fair enough, if you cared to look they cite a source.  If you were REALLY interested you could go read a book at the library or something.



Though I'm not sure you're interested in anything that doesn't support what you already believe.

You know fuck all about me, so your observations of this sort are entirely meaningless.

Well we know you won't trust whatever source I give you so it seems fitting in this case.  BTW what was your source for the original quote? The Internet? *gasp*



The ACLU is full of a lot of dumb socialist leftists, I'm not going to deny that.  My observation is that they are pretty much the only group that actually does anything useful to keep the government in check (besides groups like the NRA which only handle one issue).  Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, but they are right enough of the time that I don't want them to disappear because then we're left with nobody who even cares.

Hey, now there are some facts. Well done.

So how does it work? As long as they do just a little more good than harm, they get your blessing?


Does the NRA get your blessing even though they have had a hand in passing much of the anti-gun legislation that exists on the books today?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:35:17 PM EDT
[#40]

Originally Posted By Communists pretending to be a civil rights organiztion:
Gun Control (3/4/2002)


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.

hmmmm..


TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


Now that I've shown the law they didn't know about since it wasn't quoted they will, of course, begin defending the individual right.  Correct?



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.



Then change the constitution.  Instead of ignoring it.  If something really is anachronistic it should be easy to get the votes you need....  But we know the truth is They can't.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:43:25 PM EDT
[#41]
Perfect example of pretzel logic.


The ACLU is poopy.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:44:00 PM EDT
[#42]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:47:32 PM EDT
[#43]

Quoted:

Well we know you won't trust whatever source I give you so it seems fitting in this case.

If you had a quote from a book by some respected and reasonably impartial researcher/author, I'd be more willing to buy off on your story about Baldwin turning his back on communism than I am now.


And what, pray tell, was your source for the original quote? Your Evil Commie Quotes Desk Reference?

No, I think instead you just looked it up on the Internet.  I guess I can't trust you either.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 6:01:08 PM EDT
[#44]
height=8
Quoted:
Sounds like an organization that needs to be infiltrated and changed within.


Hopefully, it will be.

Young, arms-loving pro-second amendment liberals like myself are also ACLU members, and as has been noted in the other thread, some local ACLU branches do  support RKBA actively.

I'm going into law as a career, and intend to devote just as many pro bono hours to RKBA as other, more liberal issues that I think are important.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 6:08:22 PM EDT
[#45]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 6:14:00 PM EDT
[#46]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 6:21:49 PM EDT
[#47]
ACLU= We like the Constitution when we feel like it.


They don't speak for the document.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:21:40 PM EDT
[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's in Wikipedia, if you want to read all about it.

Thanks, but you have to admit that wikipedia isn't exactly a definitive source, right? It's open to anyone to edit any entry. I wonder who regularly checks and edits entries associated with communists?


Wikipedia is a theatre in the battle of ideas.  Wiki is determined to have a neutral point-of-view.  This is where we come in.  I might not go out and protest at this point.  However, I am willing to constantly check up on topics like the Second Amendment and gun control.  As long as we still have the ability to wage an intellectual battle, I see no need to resort to the Second Amendment- yet.  I urge all ARFCOMMERS to check in on topics of interest.  If someone has lied, edit the entry so it reflects the TRUTH.

My 2 cents.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 12:02:56 AM EDT
[#49]

Quoted:
ACLU= We like the Constitution when we feel like it.


They don't speak for the document.


You can find alot of instances when the Republican party has been just as keen on ignoring or altering the Constitution to suit their needs.

I disagree with the ACLU's 2A stance, but they're not a monopoly on selective reading of history.

Who just tried really hard to get a gay-marriage ban amendment passed? Think about that....an actual amendment to the US Constitution that does nothing but say certain people cannot get married. Is that what the BOR was written for? Is that its function?
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 5:51:02 AM EDT
[#50]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top