Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 11/23/2003 12:44:14 PM EDT
If it weren't for the ACLU's poor position on our 2nd amendment, I'd probably join the ACLU as they do support the OTHER nine amendments pretty well.

I just got a bit itchy and sent them this letter via their site's comments form:



Greetings.

As a deeply patriotic American citizen with a profound concern for ALL of my Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights, I would like to commend the ACLU for its staunch support of many of these rights and freedoms.

I have considered joining the ACLU.

But I will not do so at this time.

Why, you may wonder?

Simply for this reason:

Despite a total lack of ANY evidence of any kind that would suggest that the SECOND Amendment right of the individual citizens to keep and bear arms is in any way LESS important and LESS of a right, the ACLU persists in maintaining an anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment mindset.

The right and ability of the people to be armed and prepared to defend themselves against any threat is BY FAR the most important of all of his Constitutionally GUARANTEED rights. All the others are minor
and of secondary importance in comparison, as a person who lacks a defense mechanism lives at the whim of others.

When the ACLU accepts this fact, and proudly declares its full support for all gun rights and the Second Amendment as an UNRESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTABLE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and proves their commitment by providing aid to Americans who are unjustly charged with certain violations of firearms laws, then I will proudly join the ACLU and will make a substantial contribution to the organization as well.


I request a personalized response.

Sincerely,
[insert name here]




Any of you guys care to do the same? Sort of a fire mission?

BTW, the site is www.aclu.org


CJ


Link Posted: 11/23/2003 12:48:14 PM EDT
Well, I for one will be quite interested to learn of their response and position on the Second Amendment. The ACLU has consistenetly claimed that their only client is the Constitution, so I'd say this is their opportunity to put up or shut up.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 12:56:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 2:20:48 PM EDT by Corporal_Chaos]
In theory, the ACLU was a good idea. The problem is, its very partisan. They're the type of organization that will support someone's right to atheism, but will sue a school to fire a teacher that simply wears a cross around her neck. The ACLU has no semblence of balence. It is a distinctly liberal organization.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 12:59:46 PM EDT
Upon some more searching of the ACLU's site, I found their position on the 2nd amendment. Here it is:




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.






Now, it's obvious that their position is based mostly on defective court decisions and poorly chosen cases for study.

We should take on the task of convincing them that they are basing their opinion on bad data.

CJ
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:36:25 PM EDT
So if the SCOTUS decide that only state national guards have first amendment rights, the ACLU is going to support that?

militia- n. a citizen army -militiaman n.

citizen- n. one who is entitled to the full protection of the state; an inhabitant of any place; citizenship n.

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


I am a person, I am a citizen of the United States of American, I will defend my unalienable to keep and bears arms to the death.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:47:59 PM EDT

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. >>

Another group that doesn't know the difference between 'arms' and 'ordinance'..

:/
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:04:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Corporal_Chaos:
In theory, the ACLU was a good idea. The problem is, its very partisan. They're the type of organization that will support someone's right to atheism, but will sue a school to fire a teacher that simply wears a cross around her neck. The ACLU has no semblence of balence. It has evolved into a distinctly liberal organization.


Evolved?
The ACLU was founded by one of the leading members of the American Communist Party. It was created for one reason and one reason only: to ensure that communists would always be able to subvert and destroy the American Constitution.
Watch the ACLU remembering why they exist. They have always been, and always will be a mouthpiece for communism (or, as it is called now, progressive politics)
Why do you think the ACLU says NOTHING about the complete lack of free speech on today's college campuses?
Why do you think they say nothing about public displays of islam, buddism, judiasm (though they are becoming more anti-semetic as this becomes a leftist position) while decrying any display of christianity?

Why is the ACLU, with 400,000 members a mainstream civil rights organization while the NRA, with 4,000,000 PAYING members is an extremist organization?
If the press would ever examine the ACLU with the same microscope it does every conservative organization, it would cease to exist.
WE have taken back the white house and legislature, now we need to restore the judiciary and finally the press.
Then the battle will be complete.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:10:00 PM EDT
The ACLU did fight a pro-gun case, in of all places, Boston, MA. The city tried to forbid (legal) gun posession in public housing projects. The ACLU of course argued that it was prejudicial against minorities, not that anyone had a right to posess.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:17:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 2:19:25 PM EDT by Corporal_Chaos]

Sylvan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By Corporal_Chaos:
In theory, the ACLU was a good idea. The problem is, its very partisan. They're the type of organization that will support someone's right to atheism, but will sue a school to fire a teacher that simply wears a cross around her neck. The ACLU has no semblence of balence. It has evolved into a distinctly liberal organization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Evolved?
The ACLU was founded by one of the leading members of the American Communist Party. It was created for one reason and one reason only: to ensure that communists would always be able to subvert and destroy the American Constitution.
Watch the ACLU remembering why they exist. They have always been, and always will be a mouthpiece for communism (or, as it is called now, progressive politics)
Why do you think the ACLU says NOTHING about the complete lack of free speech on today's college campuses?
Why do you think they say nothing about public displays of islam, buddism, judiasm (though they are becoming more anti-semetic as this becomes a leftist position) while decrying any display of christianity?

Why is the ACLU, with 400,000 members a mainstream civil rights organization while the NRA, with 4,000,000 PAYING members is an extremist organization?
If the press would ever examine the ACLU with the same microscope it does every conservative organization, it would cease to exist.
WE have taken back the white house and legislature, now we need to restore the judiciary and finally the press.
Then the battle will be complete.



Well, I haven't researched the ACLU in any sort of scrutinous detail, so i did not know its founder was a leading members of the American Communist Party, though I could have probably guest it. Like I said, an organization that stands up for and defends the rights of Americans is good, in theory. Unfortunately, the ACLU is partisan, and thus picks and chooses which Americans to defend and which rights to support, instead of defending Consitution in its entireity, and ALL the people in this country protected by the Constitution. I will edit the last sentence out of my original post. Thank you for correcting me.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:18:29 PM EDT
give it up, the aclu has turned into an ultra-liberal attack group, nothing more.....they are more interested in 'protecting' terrorists and child molestors than the constitution
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:36:49 PM EDT
The ACLU is the American version of the TALIBAN.

They need to be put out to pasture ... then SHOT DEAD!!!

They are in favor of changing America into a Liberal pit of shit.


Don't forget, they are made up of the one thing that the USA needs fewer of ...LAWYERS!!!



Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:51:35 PM EDT
There is a simple and inexpensive way to change their position on the second ammendment. Join. They have only 400k paying members, this site alone has 1/4 that amount. Join, and with a sufficient number of like minded members, their policies will change as a new board of directors is voted in by the membership.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:57:04 PM EDT
I too would be a card carrying member if they were not lefty partisan. The fact that they defend some terrible people (nambla, etc..)simply comes with the territory when taking a hard line stance with respect to the bill of rights.

I cannot understand (except for being lefty) how they can rationalize away the 2nd like this:

In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles

One can take a similar position on any topic. That's like saying that we don't need the 'Anachronistic' 8th, as we are modern and civilized people, and left the sport of torture to the folks in the tower of london.

Nope, the fact is that they persue cases that further their agenda only, yet claim to be the defenders of freedom... Much like those on the other side of the coin!

Link Posted: 11/23/2003 4:51:52 PM EDT
Here's my take on the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:12:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
There is a simple and inexpensive way to change their position on the second ammendment. Join. They have only 400k paying members, this site alone has 1/4 that amount. Join, and with a sufficient number of like minded members, their policies will change as a new board of directors is voted in by the membership.



There is some risk in doing this - until the membership reaches that critical mass (if it ever does), your fees will be helping defend some outlandish causes.

Looking on the positive side, at least the ACLU isn't pursuing a rabidly anti-2nd agenda. In the interim, I could probably tolerate their so-called "neutrality" on the issue.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:21:38 PM EDT
That is true. They're certainly not campaigning AGAINST our gun rights. Maybe not helping much, but not doing much harm. At least, not at the moment.

A few well thought out letters to them, carefully disassembling their "reasons" for not supporting the 2nd as strongly as they should, just MIGHT do some good.

When your opponent bases his opinion on defective court cases, it's not too hard to gain some headway with him. Just demonstrate the flaws in the cases.

For one, Miller was DEAD at the time of the ruling, and the defense never made a final presentation due to that. Hard to lose a game where the opponent has kacked.

CJ
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:33:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: That is true. They're certainly not campaigning AGAINST our gun rights. Maybe not helping much, but not doing much harm. At least, not at the moment. A few well thought out letters to them, carefully disassembling their "reasons" for not supporting the 2nd as strongly as they should, just MIGHT do some good. When your opponent bases his opinion on defective court cases, it's not too hard to gain some headway with him. Just demonstrate the flaws in the cases. For one, Miller was DEAD at the time of the ruling, and the defense never made a final presentation due to that. Hard to lose a game where the opponent has kacked. CJ
View Quote
cmj, you are being delusional. That is merely their excuse. Their agenda is communist/progressive straight down the line. If the courts were to overturn miller they would find another excuse. Also, they don't elect their board or leaders. They are appointed by the ruling clique. You could have the entire membership of the Republican Party join the ACLU and all they would do is take the money and give it to the NAMBLA defense fund. The ACLU is a communist front with a very good name. The ACLU serves to provide support to those parties who, if given power, would torch the bill of rights as their first act.
Top Top