ACLU says Heller was wrongly decided! Time to boycott the ACLU!

imported post

My Comment:

July 5th, 2008 at 3:40 am

I carry a firearm “because freedom can’t protect itself.”

I have no idea what the ACLU is for…

imported post

Mike wrote:

See http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment - so much for the "Law of the Land."

I just called and cancelled my "Guardian of Liberty" membership wherein I let them take money from my credit card each month.

Blog still accepting comments - let's make some - here was mine:

--

247. Mike Stollenwerk Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am

This is insane! What ever happenned to “Law of the Land”?

I am canceling my Guardian of Liberty status right now - no more monthly cash payments from me.

I’ll buy more ammunition instead!

Click to expand...

Why would a sane person give them money to start with?

www.txcdl.org

imported post

SmallWhiteBox wrote:

Mike wrote:

Right - I am not on the side of simply bashing them for being the ACLU, just sending them a signal that they got off track on their 2d amendment view - during the de-segregation era the chant was 'law of the land" when segregationists accused the Court of overstepping its bounds - well Heller is the law of the land too.

Click to expand...

Sending a signal that they are off course regarding the 2nd I can agree with. I was responding to the other posts claiming they are communists and a terrible organization.

Click to expand...

I really thought you were kidding in your first post, but then I read this one. You said, "The ACLU has done enough for this country..." Talk about short some of the facts. The fact that this organization has the gall to include both "American" and "Civil Liberties" in its name is enough to make me puke. There are few organizations more opposed to the nature of this nation and its history than the ACLU. The ACLU may have done some good work in its past, but coming out clearly against the plain understanding of the 2A simply proves to yet another group that the "Always Causing Legal Unrest" hooligans has nothing to do with America nor it's civil liberties.

imported post

IMO the ACLU's position on 2A is consistent with it's history and status quo. It's few landmark cases where they protect the rights of all American's seem to fall under the heading of "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then."

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

IMO the ACLU's position on 2A is consistent with it's history and status quo. It's few landmark cases where they protect the rights of all American's seem to fall under the heading of "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then."

Click to expand...

Squirrels smell out acorns

The ACLU actively protects many rights, whilst it passively rejects the 2nd. I imagine they will re-examine this in the near future considering the brouhaha that has erupted from this obviously mistaken interpretation of the 2nd. As long as they don't go over the line and actively (litigation) oppose the 2nd, I am happy to have them defending my other rights; privacy mainly. They are right now actively involved with attempts to dismantle the illegal warrantless wiretapping that the NSA is conducting. Of course our spineless politicians also passed another illegal law that allows retroactive immunity to the telecoms that participate, the ACLU will also go after this law to try and stop this crap. Just something that the ACLU is currently working on that is very important; no organization will get everything right.

imported post

tattedupboy wrote:

No surprise here. The only reason the ACLU exists is topromote the "rights" of atheists, gays, and Islamic extremists. Christians and law abiding gunowners need not apply.

Click to expand...

How this ACLU position would be a surprise is beyond me. They are nothing but a pimple on the arse of this country.

imported post

SmallWhiteBox wrote:

Squirrels smell out acorns

The ACLU actively protects many rights, whilst it passively rejects the 2nd. I imagine they will re-examine this in the near future considering the brouhaha that has erupted from this obviously mistaken interpretation of the 2nd. As long as they don't go over the line and actively (litigation) oppose the 2nd, I am happy to have them defending my other rights; privacy mainly. They are right now actively involved with attempts to dismantle the illegal warrantless wiretapping that the NSA is conducting. Of course our spineless politicians also passed another illegal law that allows retroactive immunity to the telecoms that participate, the ACLU will also go after this law to try and stop this crap. Just something that the ACLU is currently working on that is very important; no organization will get everything right.

Click to expand...

Well, let's see. The ACLU supports "privacy" which isn't an enumerated right (show it to me in The Constitution of the United States or the Amendments thereof) but rejects the 2A. Is that about right?

And just who is the government performing wire taps on?The scope is so limited and focused that I just can't get excited about it. Now when they start randomly monitoring calls internal to the United States and recording them, or broaden the parameters to keying in on any communication where certain key words surface, then I'll get excited.

I can't think of one issue where the ACLU has used my tax dollars to sue federal or local governments for the betterment of this nation. Just look at what they've accomplished lately:

· Sided with federal judicial power grab declaring execution of child molesters cruel and unusual

· Sued to get activist judges to declare unconstitutional a state resolution in CA to define marriage as between one man and one woman - voted in the affirmative by 61% no less (a landslide in today’s politics)

· Sued multiple times to oppose BSA (a private organization) from legally deciding who they will associate with (barring homosexuals from leading scout troops to avoid pederasty)

· Determined to gain all rights and protections belonging to United States citizens for illegal aliens

And the list goes on and on. The ACLU should be sued for abusing the name American.

By the way, legislators are supposed to legislate. It was never intended that some elitist group of men (and women) in black robes would act as arbiters of the meaning of The Constitution of the United States anyway. That is a perversion that should have been put to an end a long time ago by what you characterize as “spineless” politicians.

imported post

SmallWhiteBox wrote:

Mike wrote:

Right - I am not on the side of simply bashing them for being the ACLU, just sending them a signal that they got off track on their 2d amendment view - during the de-segregation era the chant was 'law of the land" when segregationists accused the Court of overstepping its bounds - well Heller is the law of the land too.

Click to expand...

Sending a signal that they are off course regarding the 2nd I can agree with. I was responding to the other posts claiming they are communists and a terrible organization.

Click to expand...

You have a lot of catching up to do: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/12601.html

Granted, there are some posters here who are angered at the ACLU for not agreeing with the individual RTKBA. And that's understandable. For others, it's an opportunity to jump all over the ACLU for not supporting their neo-con agenda.

Anyhow, perhaps merge the two threads so I don't have to re-port my arguments?

imported post

Well, let's see. The ACLU supports "privacy" which isn't an enumerated right (show it to me in The Constitution of the United States or the Amendments thereof) but rejects the 2A. Is that about right?

Click to expand...

The right to privacy, though not mentioned in that particular context, is covered under the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,............

How can we be secure in these things if we don't have a right to privacy?

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

For others, it's an opportunity to jump all over the ACLU for not supporting their neo-con agenda.

Click to expand...

while it has nothing to do with a "neo-con agenda", I will be the first person to say that I despised teh organization even prior to this.

The group has it's own (mostly leftist) ideas of "Civil liberties", and as long as that version is the one that needs protecting, they will protect it. anything else and you're SOL. personally I say the groupneeds to rot.

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

For others, it's an opportunity to jump all over the ACLU for not supporting their neo-con agenda.

Click to expand...

while it has nothing to do with a "neo-con agenda", I will be the first person to say that I despised teh organization even prior to this.

The group has it's own (mostly leftist) ideas of "Civil liberties", and as long as that version is the one that needs protecting, they will protect it. anything else and you're SOL. personally I say the groupneeds to rot.

Click to expand...

Could you expand on what those are?

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Could you expand on what those are?

Click to expand...

illegal immigration- while I don't have a problem with immigration, I oppose illegal immigration. There are procedures in place for a reason.

The Death penalty- They oppose it. I am sorry, but some criminals just deserve to die. A murderer didn't care aboutthe lives of those he killed, why should we care about his?

seperation of church and state- the constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. while I can agree that there shouldn't be a state religion, teh very foundation of American law is based upon Judeo-Christian teachings. why shouldn't courthouses display the ten commandments, since those 2 stone tablets are teh foundation for the American system of law n the first place?

Affrmative action- affirmative action is , in and of itself, racist.

I have other reasons , but since they don't pertain to the subject matter of this thread, I'll leave it at that. I don't mind discussing them with you, but maybe we should take that somewhere else, rather than hijack this thread for that purpose.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

SmallWhiteBox wrote:

Mike wrote:

Right - I am not on the side of simply bashing them for being the ACLU, just sending them a signal that they got off track on their 2d amendment view - during the de-segregation era the chant was 'law of the land" when segregationists accused the Court of overstepping its bounds - well Heller is the law of the land too.

Click to expand...

Sending a signal that they are off course regarding the 2nd I can agree with. I was responding to the other posts claiming they are communists and a terrible organization.

Click to expand...

You have a lot of catching up to do: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/12601.html

Granted, there are some posters here who are angered at the ACLU for not agreeing with the individual RTKBA. And that's understandable. For others, it's an opportunity to jump all over the ACLU for not supporting their neo-con agenda.

Anyhow, perhaps merge the two threads so I don't have to re-port my arguments?

Click to expand...

In the first place, I've never heard of a "neo-con agenda" but I have heard of neocon - short for neoconservative. Being that I am a classical liberal (as opposed to American liberal), I hardly think you've used the label appropriately and it certainly doesn't fit me. I don't know of any particular label appropriate for one who despises the ACLU, except maybe … informed.

The ACLU is not about civil liberties, but you apparently believe it is. I'm certainly not bothered about that and I won't endeavor to change your mind.

imported post

vbnative73 wrote:

I carry a firearm “because freedom can’t protect itself.”

Click to expand...

Nice.

imported post

Really, I thought most of the right wingnut criticisms of the ACLU were nothing more than tin foil hat folly. But this statement by them changes that. You can't pick and choose what rights you want to apply to who. Either everyone has these rights or they don't.

imported post

After years of protecting the rights of criminals, terrorists and whoever, I want a right to simple self defence and the ACLU gives me the finger? That is not acceptable. No matter what good they have ever done, this is not acceptable. They have to be stopped now and I want to know what to do.

imported post

Just an FYI:

I have made contact with some internal members of the ACLU and brought this situation to their attention (apparently some of the internal leadership didn't quite know that the blog posting was made). There is going to be a review. I pointed out some of the law cites in regards to Miller and Heller, especially Miller and the mutations involved after it.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

We'll see how it goes. They got 934 comments in the thread when they have an average of 5-10. Keep the comments coming in. I do give them some credit for not just deleting the blog post and taking the pounding that they're getting on this issue.

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Just an FYI:

I have made contact with some internal members of the ACLU and brought this situation to their attention (apparently some of the internal leadership didn't quite know that the blog posting was made). There is going to be a review. I pointed out some of the law cites in regards to Miller and Heller, especially Miller and the mutations involved after it.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

We'll see how it goes. They got 934 comments in the thread when they have an average of 5-10. Keep the comments coming in. I do give them some credit for not just deleting the blog post and taking the pounding that they're getting on this issue.

Click to expand...

Right - we need to push them to reverse on this - a reversal would be very newsworthy and lend credence to Heller for the future.

imported post

Some members of ACLU are starting to get it.

Quote: "The Nevada ACLU has declared its support for an individual’s right to bear arms, apparently making it the first state affiliate in the nation to buck the national organization’s position on the Second Amendment."

From http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/11/only-nevada-aclu-opposes-gun-control/

imported post

The surprise expressed here regarding the ACLU's position on the right to keep and bear arms comes as a bit of a shock. Am I the only one old enough to remember when Morton Grove passed it's handgun ban and Kennesaw, GA responded by passing a law requiring that each head of household own at least one gun?

For those who didn't know and those who have forgotten, ACLU got involved in both cases. In the Morton Grove case, ACLU filed an amicus curia brief contending the handgun ban was constitutional under both state and federal constitutions. In Georgia, ACLU filed a lawsuit contending that the Kennesaw, GA. law requiring gun ownership was a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom even though the Kennesaw ordinance clearly excuses conscientious objectors. That was back in 1982 so it's understandable that people forget.