-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
ACLU
- Thread starter tito887
- Start date
imported post
In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
this is from the ACLU website. never mind. They think that the court "reinterpreted," the amendment.
In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
this is from the ACLU website. never mind. They think that the court "reinterpreted," the amendment.
johnnyb
Banned
imported post
the aclu is not in the rights protection business. they are there to further socialism
the aclu is not in the rights protection business. they are there to further socialism
bobernet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
+1
The only rights they particularly care about are the ones that allow babies to be murdered and atheists not to be offended.
You can occasionally throw in a little affirmative action for seasoning.
They will never be on "our side."
+1
The only rights they particularly care about are the ones that allow babies to be murdered and atheists not to be offended.
You can occasionally throw in a little affirmative action for seasoning.
They will never be on "our side."
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
Trying to stay on-topic...
Seeing that the ACLU supports freedom of speech (and haven't authored a law that restricts this freedom), and supports the abolition of the draconian anti-drug laws that encourage LEOs to violate guns owners (in addition to other citizens)... the ACLU is actually significantly more pro-gun-owner than John McCain.
It comes down to one's definition of freedom. I believe in the freedom for all people to do what they want, so long as it does not directly harm others. I don't define it as the freedom to be a good Christian. Maybe that's why I support the ACLU. Liberty isn't only about guns.
Trying to stay on-topic...
Seeing that the ACLU supports freedom of speech (and haven't authored a law that restricts this freedom), and supports the abolition of the draconian anti-drug laws that encourage LEOs to violate guns owners (in addition to other citizens)... the ACLU is actually significantly more pro-gun-owner than John McCain.
It comes down to one's definition of freedom. I believe in the freedom for all people to do what they want, so long as it does not directly harm others. I don't define it as the freedom to be a good Christian. Maybe that's why I support the ACLU. Liberty isn't only about guns.
mzbk2l
Regular Member
imported post
I'm stealing your quote, imperialism2024. That one's too good not to use.
I'm stealing your quote, imperialism2024. That one's too good not to use.
streetdoc
Regular Member
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
imperialism2024 wrote:
Well said!! my ACLU card is right behind my VCDL, CCW, and NRA membership cards. These are all protected by the gun that is normally openly carried on my hip.
Bulldog1967
Regular Member
imported post
Sorry, but that is laughable:
class="forumText"http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2007term/35797prs20080626.html?s_src=RSS
The Right To Bear Arms
The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.
In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.
Sorry, but that is laughable:
class="forumText"http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2007term/35797prs20080626.html?s_src=RSS
The Right To Bear Arms
The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.
In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
The ACLU, while occasionally doing the right thing and good things, is a socialist organization that is anathema to most everything American. The fact that to further their agenda they occasionally also preserve the parts of the constitution that are helpful to their cause is no more in their favor than jihadists who want to kill Americans simply because they are Americans finding our constitutional protections of importance when it serves their purposes.
The ACLU, while occasionally doing the right thing and good things, is a socialist organization that is anathema to most everything American. The fact that to further their agenda they occasionally also preserve the parts of the constitution that are helpful to their cause is no more in their favor than jihadists who want to kill Americans simply because they are Americans finding our constitutional protections of importance when it serves their purposes.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Bulldog1967 quoted:
Outright snowjob.
Probably many of you already know, but for those who don't, there are some 92 Supreme Court cases where a gun or guns isdiscussed inthe opinion.
Many of them refer to the right in words that reveal itwas considered an individual right.
There is a book from www.gunlaws.com that examinesthe cases, giving the text of the case. The title is Supreme Court Gun Cases. http://www.bloomfieldpress.com/supreme.htm
I got my copy at a gun store. Its well worth the reading.
Bulldog1967 quoted:
SNIP
class="forumText"http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2007term/35797prs20080626.html?s_src=RSS
The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.
Outright snowjob.
Probably many of you already know, but for those who don't, there are some 92 Supreme Court cases where a gun or guns isdiscussed inthe opinion.
Many of them refer to the right in words that reveal itwas considered an individual right.
There is a book from www.gunlaws.com that examinesthe cases, giving the text of the case. The title is Supreme Court Gun Cases. http://www.bloomfieldpress.com/supreme.htm
I got my copy at a gun store. Its well worth the reading.
Prometheus
Regular Member
imported post
The ACLU has many different chapters.
The Chapter in Wyoming is going to be VERY different from the one in san diego, CA.
The national ACLU is a combination of many different chapters and many different views.
Painting every ACLU chapter or member with the same brush is very ignorant. It's similar to painting every NRA member or local group as anti-assault weapon and anti-hi-cap. National positions can vary greatly from local members.
The ACLU is doing WONDERFUL things protecting rights to privacy and free speech. Their national position on firearms is quite disturbing, but again the same justifications I see many members here use to justify their NRA memberships is the same as supporting the ACLU.
"They may not be perfect but they are biggest and most influential group we have"... not saying I agree with this flawed logic but the parallels between the two groups are striking in these regards.
The ACLU has many different chapters.
The Chapter in Wyoming is going to be VERY different from the one in san diego, CA.
The national ACLU is a combination of many different chapters and many different views.
Painting every ACLU chapter or member with the same brush is very ignorant. It's similar to painting every NRA member or local group as anti-assault weapon and anti-hi-cap. National positions can vary greatly from local members.
The ACLU is doing WONDERFUL things protecting rights to privacy and free speech. Their national position on firearms is quite disturbing, but again the same justifications I see many members here use to justify their NRA memberships is the same as supporting the ACLU.
"They may not be perfect but they are biggest and most influential group we have"... not saying I agree with this flawed logic but the parallels between the two groups are striking in these regards.
slickrock
New member
imported post
IMPERIALISM2024:
To say the ACLU, who has NEVER supported guns, is more pro gun than John McCain is adumbstatement to make when it's right on the ACLU website that they are AGAINST private ownership of guns.
I've gotta think you are an Anti on here fishing to say that.
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." — Policy #47
Found right here on ACLU website. http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
[align=left]THAT is more pro-gun than John McCain ??McCain, who has gone on record this year as saying he supports the Second Amendment and HIS personal belief is that "Shall not be infringed" means requiring Permitsis unconstitutional![/align]
[align=left]"McCain also made another jab at Obama in a writen statement, in which he said, "Unlike the elitist view [Obama's] that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling ( Supreme court Heller case) recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.""[/align]
[align=left]found right here http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/256624[/align]
[align=left]Yousay the ACLU who states only the military and police should have guns is MORE pro-gun than McCain who says gun ownership is SACRED, the same as free speech? [/align]
[align=left]You are smoking some really good dope in PA, if that is really where you are from, if you believe what you posted. Or you are an Anti-gunspy on here only to stir up Obama bull$hit and try to trick people into supporting the ACLU, an anti-gun organization.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
IMPERIALISM2024:
To say the ACLU, who has NEVER supported guns, is more pro gun than John McCain is adumbstatement to make when it's right on the ACLU website that they are AGAINST private ownership of guns.
I've gotta think you are an Anti on here fishing to say that.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." — Policy #47
Found right here on ACLU website. http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
[align=left]THAT is more pro-gun than John McCain ??McCain, who has gone on record this year as saying he supports the Second Amendment and HIS personal belief is that "Shall not be infringed" means requiring Permitsis unconstitutional![/align]
[align=left]"McCain also made another jab at Obama in a writen statement, in which he said, "Unlike the elitist view [Obama's] that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling ( Supreme court Heller case) recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.""[/align]
[align=left]found right here http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/256624[/align]
[align=left]Yousay the ACLU who states only the military and police should have guns is MORE pro-gun than McCain who says gun ownership is SACRED, the same as free speech? [/align]
[align=left]You are smoking some really good dope in PA, if that is really where you are from, if you believe what you posted. Or you are an Anti-gunspy on here only to stir up Obama bull$hit and try to trick people into supporting the ACLU, an anti-gun organization.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
MetalChris
Regular Member
imported post
slickrock wrote:
slickrock wrote:
Hey there FNG, how about you look up Imperialism's post history before you start ad hominem attacks.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
Well slickrock, I'll take your personal attacks with a good chuckle, and an indication that I did not properly explain myself.
Note that I said "pro-gun-owner", not "pro-gun". As I look at it, there are many aspects to being a gun owner, and the government makes contact with gun owners in many ways. But let's get the clearly gun-related issues out of the way. McCain supports an Assault Weapons Ban, as well as "background checks" for private transactions (closing the "gun show loophole"). The ACLU supports leaving gun control up to the states to decide. Looking at that, neither one belives the Second Amendment "shall not be infringed". I'll be interested to see how the ACLU reacts post-Heller. Regardless, McCain is generally talking out his ass by saying he believes the Second Amendment is a "fundamental right"... if it were so fundamental, he wouldn't be advocating so many "reasonable" restrictions on it. So here, McCain=0, ACLU=0.
However, there are aspects of gun ownership not directly involving guns. Take free speech. The ACLU has historically come out very much in favor of free speech, no matter if you are a good Republican, a good Democrat, or a person who thinks for himself. On the other hand, there's thing that put limitations on the free-speech rights of gun-rights advocacy groups (among others, of course), something called the McCain-Feingold Act. McCain=0, ACLU=1.
Now let's look to searches and seizures. The ACLU supports the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights of the individual against an overzealous government. You know, "civil liberties". McCain supports the PATRIOT Act, which gives the government more authority to be overzealous. McCain=0, ACLU=2.
In a less general sense, McCain supports the "War on Drugs", the War on Immigration, and other Prohibitions that function to A) give more police power to the state and B) increase crime through pushing such activities underground. Neither of which is advantageous to gun owners. It doesn't matter if you're being illegally searched because you're open carrying, or because you "fit the profile of a drug dealer", you're still being violated. The ACLU supports drug legalization, the rights of immigrants, and other policies that would stop criminalizing such malum prohibitum offenses, and that would eventually act to help gun owners to be left alone in the long run. A more tenuous argument, perhaps, and one that really deserves more than a paragraph to explain fully.
Final score? McCain=0, ACLU=3. As I said before, gun ownership is about more than just guns. I never said (in this thread) that Obama is better for gun owners than McCain. It can be argued that he is in fact better for gun owners, but I made that argument in another thread... can't find it at the moment, though.
Anyone else want to chime in?
Well slickrock, I'll take your personal attacks with a good chuckle, and an indication that I did not properly explain myself.
Note that I said "pro-gun-owner", not "pro-gun". As I look at it, there are many aspects to being a gun owner, and the government makes contact with gun owners in many ways. But let's get the clearly gun-related issues out of the way. McCain supports an Assault Weapons Ban, as well as "background checks" for private transactions (closing the "gun show loophole"). The ACLU supports leaving gun control up to the states to decide. Looking at that, neither one belives the Second Amendment "shall not be infringed". I'll be interested to see how the ACLU reacts post-Heller. Regardless, McCain is generally talking out his ass by saying he believes the Second Amendment is a "fundamental right"... if it were so fundamental, he wouldn't be advocating so many "reasonable" restrictions on it. So here, McCain=0, ACLU=0.
However, there are aspects of gun ownership not directly involving guns. Take free speech. The ACLU has historically come out very much in favor of free speech, no matter if you are a good Republican, a good Democrat, or a person who thinks for himself. On the other hand, there's thing that put limitations on the free-speech rights of gun-rights advocacy groups (among others, of course), something called the McCain-Feingold Act. McCain=0, ACLU=1.
Now let's look to searches and seizures. The ACLU supports the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights of the individual against an overzealous government. You know, "civil liberties". McCain supports the PATRIOT Act, which gives the government more authority to be overzealous. McCain=0, ACLU=2.
In a less general sense, McCain supports the "War on Drugs", the War on Immigration, and other Prohibitions that function to A) give more police power to the state and B) increase crime through pushing such activities underground. Neither of which is advantageous to gun owners. It doesn't matter if you're being illegally searched because you're open carrying, or because you "fit the profile of a drug dealer", you're still being violated. The ACLU supports drug legalization, the rights of immigrants, and other policies that would stop criminalizing such malum prohibitum offenses, and that would eventually act to help gun owners to be left alone in the long run. A more tenuous argument, perhaps, and one that really deserves more than a paragraph to explain fully.
Final score? McCain=0, ACLU=3. As I said before, gun ownership is about more than just guns. I never said (in this thread) that Obama is better for gun owners than McCain. It can be argued that he is in fact better for gun owners, but I made that argument in another thread... can't find it at the moment, though.
Anyone else want to chime in?
tattedupboy
Regular Member
imported post
Are we talking about the Anti Christ Lucifer Underlings?
Are we talking about the Anti Christ Lucifer Underlings?
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
You make soem good points in front of a tough crowd, Imp.
A few years ago the Gun Rights Policy Conference was held in Crystal City, VA. Both Bob Barr and the ACLU were there, and the ACLU was asking for our (gun rights activists) help. They wanted us to join a coalition to restore and protect civil liberities lost in the wake of 9/11. Many on the pro-gun side would've jumped in, but the ACLU people were unyielding on changing their stance on the 2nd Amm., so the coalition fizzled.
Later many of the pro-gun people were saying that even though they don't support the 2A and we won't join with them, we wind up fighting for their causes anyway, because we also believe in protecting free speech, privacy, etc.
Many ACLU members have been extremely leftist over the years, but saying they "only protect the constitution for terrorists" is silly. Either both you and an accused terrorist have the right to a fair trial or neither of you do.
I think as time goes on and the USSC decision starts to be felt across the country, we may be able to get a foot in the door of the ACLU and get them to recognize us, but it's still a long way off.
imperialism2024 wrote:
You make soem good points in front of a tough crowd, Imp.
A few years ago the Gun Rights Policy Conference was held in Crystal City, VA. Both Bob Barr and the ACLU were there, and the ACLU was asking for our (gun rights activists) help. They wanted us to join a coalition to restore and protect civil liberities lost in the wake of 9/11. Many on the pro-gun side would've jumped in, but the ACLU people were unyielding on changing their stance on the 2nd Amm., so the coalition fizzled.
Later many of the pro-gun people were saying that even though they don't support the 2A and we won't join with them, we wind up fighting for their causes anyway, because we also believe in protecting free speech, privacy, etc.
Many ACLU members have been extremely leftist over the years, but saying they "only protect the constitution for terrorists" is silly. Either both you and an accused terrorist have the right to a fair trial or neither of you do.
I think as time goes on and the USSC decision starts to be felt across the country, we may be able to get a foot in the door of the ACLU and get them to recognize us, but it's still a long way off.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
I confronted a pro-gun 'director of legislative action' that holds a similar title/office in a state ACLU chapter and a JD. He explained that the ACLU litigators are volunteers and absent their personal interest in RKABA cases there is no ACLU interest in RKABA.
With the RKABA's rising prominence in the demotic consciousness and impending incorporation against the states as a 'civil right' we may hope that there mey be more interest in the ACLU.
Ask Alan Gura.
I confronted a pro-gun 'director of legislative action' that holds a similar title/office in a state ACLU chapter and a JD. He explained that the ACLU litigators are volunteers and absent their personal interest in RKABA cases there is no ACLU interest in RKABA.
With the RKABA's rising prominence in the demotic consciousness and impending incorporation against the states as a 'civil right' we may hope that there mey be more interest in the ACLU.
Ask Alan Gura.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Imperialism, as is usually the case you make a very cogent, intelligent argument. As is not rarely the case, I disagree with your conclusion. However, as I don't currently have the inclination to perform the research to cite my dispute, I will leave it at respectful disagreement on the issue and continuing respect for your principles.
Imperialism, as is usually the case you make a very cogent, intelligent argument. As is not rarely the case, I disagree with your conclusion.
However, as I don't currently have the inclination to perform the research to cite my dispute, I will leave it at respectful disagreement on the issue and continuing respect for your principles.Jack Hollowpoint
New member
imported post
"The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create."
What Heller did (SCOTUS 07-290) is establish unequivocally that RKBA is an individual right and not in any manner contingent upon service to a "militia."
Scalia's discussion in the majority opinion is broadly historical -- going back to English Common Law -- and exhaustively comprehensive.
It's worthwhile reading. The majority opinion runs about 68 informative pages. Anyone with an interest in this matter should read Scalia's opinion.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/
Full text of the SCOTUS ruling:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
"The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create."
What Heller did (SCOTUS 07-290) is establish unequivocally that RKBA is an individual right and not in any manner contingent upon service to a "militia."
Scalia's discussion in the majority opinion is broadly historical -- going back to English Common Law -- and exhaustively comprehensive.
It's worthwhile reading. The majority opinion runs about 68 informative pages. Anyone with an interest in this matter should read Scalia's opinion.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/
Full text of the SCOTUS ruling:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
unreconstructed1
Regular Member
imported post
personally, I despise the ACLU.
personally, I despise the ACLU.