PDA

View Full Version : ACLU Going Door to Door in SD


AfricanHunter
05-01-2009, 7:02 PM
I live San Diego (South Park for those who know the area). Just had an ACLU rep come knocking on my door asking for support. Conversation went something like this;

"Hi, I am from the ACLU and we want your support for blah blah blah Prop 8 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...."

"I'm sorry, I can't support an organization that does not support the 2A, specifically as an individual right to bear arms."

"Oh, er, you know, collective right, national guard, etc.."

"Well, The Supreme Court affirmed the individual right to bear arms in the Heller Decision and the ACLU still says they disagree."

"What decision?"

"Heller."

"Well, would you consider supporting us on this issue?"

"No, Sorry, Tell your higher ups to change on this issue and I will consider supporting the ACLU"

"Thanks, Goodnight"

Just thought I would give everyone a heads up on this as I think its a good opportunity to tell them why you wont support them and call attention to their hypocritical position on the 2A.

glock_this
05-01-2009, 7:08 PM
man I WISH they would come knock on my door.. I have a mouthful to say to an organization that seeks to trample out the rights of the many in leu of the few.. and often, those few are unworthy.

BTF/PTM
05-01-2009, 7:22 PM
So wait a minute...they support a universal right of equality like same sex marriage (allowing anyone to marry anyone, essentially), but they don't support a universal right of equality like the right to keep and bear arms? Now there's a contradiction based on pure opinion if I ever saw one.

bulgron
05-01-2009, 7:23 PM
They came knocking on my door a month or so ago. Caught me just as we were sitting down for dinner. When he told me who he was, I told him I'd support the ACLU when they were ready to support the entire constitution. He looked confused at that, but I didn't give him a chance to ask any questions -- I just closed the door in his face.

Putz. Bugging me at dinner. And for a socialist agenda, no less.

gcvt
05-01-2009, 7:26 PM
So wait a minute...they support a universal right of equality like same sex marriage (allowing anyone to marry anyone, essentially), but they don't support a universal right of equality like the right to keep and bear arms? Now there's a contradiction based on pure opinion if I ever saw one.

Crazy huh?

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

AfricanHunter
05-01-2009, 7:36 PM
man I WISH they would come knock on my door.. I have a mouthful to say to an organization that seeks to trample out the rights of the many in leu of the few.. and often, those few are unworthy.

Yes, I did quite enjoy it. Convo above is highly summarized... :43:

BTF/PTM
05-01-2009, 7:39 PM
I'm gonna put up a spin-off thread so as not to thread jack this one. I wanna get some feedback on this ACLU nonsense.

To the original poster, thanks! I do support same-sex marriage out of the simple view that I really truly don't give a flying fark who you marry. This country has far more serious issues to deal with for me to be worrying about whether the person who makes you most happy is the correct gender. That said, I also will not sign the ACLU's paperwork should they arrive at my door because their view of the 2nd amendment is not only against my belief but if you read their wording it's completely contradictive.

Hopi
05-01-2009, 7:41 PM
I'm gonna put up a spin-off thread so as not to thread jack this one. I wanna get some feedback on this ACLU nonsense.

To the original poster, thanks! I do support same-sex marriage out of the simple view that I really truly don't give a flying fark who you marry. This country has far more serious issues to deal with for me to be worrying about whether the person who makes you most happy is the correct gender. That said, I also will not sign the ACLU's paperwork should they arrive at my door because their view of the 2nd amendment is not only against my belief but if you read their wording it's completely contradictive.

+1.

It seems "american civil liberties union" is a Euphamism in the great tradition of the "clean skies act".....

AfricanHunter
05-01-2009, 7:57 PM
I'm gonna put up a spin-off thread so as not to thread jack this one. I wanna get some feedback on this ACLU nonsense.

To the original poster, thanks! I do support same-sex marriage out of the simple view that I really truly don't give a flying fark who you marry. This country has far more serious issues to deal with for me to be worrying about whether the person who makes you most happy is the correct gender. That said, I also will not sign the ACLU's paperwork should they arrive at my door because their view of the 2nd amendment is not only against my belief but if you read their wording it's completely contradictive.

I totally agree, when I told her to communicate my objections to her superiors she did write down the name of the Heller decision and some other scribbles. seemed surprised that they went against the SCOTUS. If I caused one person to question the position and go do more research I am happy.

Humboldt_G
05-01-2009, 8:00 PM
I live San Diego (South Park for those who know the area). Just had an ACLU rep come knocking on my door asking for support. Conversation went something like this;

"Hi, I am from the ACLU and we want your support for blah blah blah Prop 8 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...."

"I'm sorry, I can't support an organization that does not support the 2A, specifically as an individual right to bear arms."

"Oh, er, you know, collective right, national guard, etc.."

"Well, The Supreme Court affirmed the individual right to bear arms in the Heller Decision and the ACLU still says they disagree."

"What decision?"

"Heller."

"Well, would you consider supporting us on this issue?"

"No, Sorry, Tell your higher ups to change on this issue and I will consider supporting the ACLU"

"Thanks, Goodnight"

Just thought I would give everyone a heads up on this as I think its a good opportunity to tell them why you wont support them and call attention to their hypocritical position on the 2A.

Well, if thats the way your convo went, good job! As far as the ACLU I dont think I would EVER support them

grahlaika
05-01-2009, 8:08 PM
I live San Diego (South Park for those who know the area). Just had an ACLU rep come knocking on my door asking for support. Conversation went something like this;

"Hi, I am from the ACLU and we want your support for blah blah blah Prop 8 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...."

"I'm sorry, I can't support an organization that does not support the 2A, specifically as an individual right to bear arms."

"Oh, er, you know, collective right, national guard, etc.."

"Well, The Supreme Court affirmed the individual right to bear arms in the Heller Decision and the ACLU still says they disagree."

"What decision?"

"Heller."

"Well, would you consider supporting us on this issue?"

"No, Sorry, Tell your higher ups to change on this issue and I will consider supporting the ACLU"

"Thanks, Goodnight"

Just thought I would give everyone a heads up on this as I think its a good opportunity to tell them why you wont support them and call attention to their hypocritical position on the 2A.

I had almost exactly the same conversation with an ACLU person handing out flyers on the street corner in my neighborhood. I told her I'd love to support the ACLU, but I couldn't support an organization that claims to be for all rights, but blatantly be excluding 2A as a right. I told her as soon as her organization stopped being for half-assed constitutional rights I'd be the first one to sign up.

gravedigger
05-01-2009, 8:09 PM
Maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age, but if the ACLU drops by my house, as soon as I hear they're from the ACLU, I'll swing my door open wide, turn quickly to look behind me, step off to one side and yell, "FLESH EATER! BONE BREAKER!! KILL! KILL!!"

I have security cameras, so you'd all get to see the video of them running like scalded cats when I post it on YOU TUBE!

:willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly:

That reminds me. I'll have to stop by PetSmart and pick up a couple of HUGE dog dishes and a GIANT chew toy, muddy them up a bit, and leave them by the front door with the upper half of a chewed through heavy duty dog leash tied to the railing.

Ground Loop
05-01-2009, 8:20 PM
I hope I'm home if they knock here.

I'd ask them to name all of the 10 in the Bill of Rights, to make sure they support each one. We wouldn't get very far.

Quiet
05-01-2009, 8:22 PM
I'll support the national ACLU organization when they adopt the ACLU of Nevada's stance on the Second Amendment (http://aclunv.org/category/issue/second-amendment).


ACLU of Nevada Supports Individualís Right to Bear Arms

Submitted by Paige Thie on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 16:08. Second Amendment

In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision concerning the D.C. handgun ban (District of Columbia v. Heller) the ACLU of Nevada considers it important to clearly state its position regarding the right to bear arms. The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. This policy was formulated by our afilliate Board in light of both the U.S. Constitution and the clearly-stated individual right to bear arms as set out in the Nevada Constitution's Declaration of Rights.

hawk1
05-01-2009, 8:26 PM
You did good. :)

USAFTS
05-01-2009, 8:33 PM
I hope I'm home if they knock here.

I'd ask them to name all of the 10 in the Bill of Rights, to make sure they support each one. We wouldn't get very far.

I bet that the majority of them will know the first and maybe the fifth. I can comfortably tell you that when they left my front door, they would be well aware of numbers 2, 4 and 14 at the very least.

Flopper
05-01-2009, 11:59 PM
I'll support the national ACLU organization when they adopt the ACLU of Nevada's stance on the Second Amendment (http://aclunv.org/category/issue/second-amendment).
THAT is interesting.

has anyone heard of a response from the national org in regards to this statement?

Maestro Pistolero
05-02-2009, 1:23 AM
has anyone heard of a response from the national org in regards to this statement?

I don't have a reference, but I recall them saying that their local branches were free to make their own policy decisions.

It is scandalous that they would disagree with a monumental Supreme Court decision that expands civil rights such as Heller. The hypocrisy is astounding.

You have a right to stem cell research or to abortion (I take no position on either of those issues), but apparently have no right to the means to defend your life from a violent attack. :confused:

nicki
05-02-2009, 1:24 AM
There are two types of door knockers, paid or volunteer. If you engage in conversation you can find out the believer versus the paid knocker by depth of their belief.

I would not slam the door on them or make snide comments about why their organization only supports part of the bill of rights.

Instead I would have told the person that the ACLU has stood up and defended unpopular views and minorities for years and that they have been a guardian of most of the bill of rights.

It is a shame that the ACLU is hostile to the one right that if gone, all the other rights would become government revocable privileges.

When someone comes to the door, you have a opportunity to talk to someone who would not normally run into people like us.

If they are anti gun and we come off as "jerks", we have just made sure that they stay anti gun.

Nicki

steve40
05-02-2009, 1:32 AM
uhh, just a quick fyi on me, whats the ACLU??? LOL. :p

Sinixstar
05-02-2009, 1:41 AM
There are two types of door knockers, paid or volunteer. If you engage in conversation you can find out the believer versus the paid knocker by depth of their belief.

I would not slam the door on them or make snide comments about why their organization only supports part of the bill of rights.

Instead I would have told the person that the ACLU has stood up and defended unpopular views and minorities for years and that they have been a guardian of most of the bill of rights.

It is a shame that the ACLU is hostile to the one right that if gone, all the other rights would become government revocable privileges.

When someone comes to the door, you have a opportunity to talk to someone who would not normally run into people like us.

If they are anti gun and we come off as "jerks", we have just made sure that they stay anti gun.

Nicki

That's pretty much how it goes.
If you read somebody the riot act, they essentially just write you off as a *****, and don't bother actually listening to anything you have to say. Anything you believe in that doesn't jive with what they already know/believe in becomes inherently "wrong" as a result.

Unfortunately - that's just how most people react. Best thing to do is to stay calm, state your position, and try to do your best not to come off as hostile. Don't feed the stereotype of angry anti-social gunowner.

maschronic
05-02-2009, 1:45 AM
you should have told him how much you love guns. make sure you give him the evil look. then say,"wanna come inside?" haha.....when he says no, insist that he comes inside.

bruceflinch
05-02-2009, 6:46 AM
uhh, just a quick fyi on me, whats the ACLU??? LOL. :p

Isn't that the American Commie Lovers Union? :)

MudCamper
05-02-2009, 9:11 AM
uhh, just a quick fyi on me, whats the ACLU??? LOL. :p

The American Civil Liberties Union. It's an org that fights to defend the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments of the Constitution. It is a noble and worthy cause, just as the NRA's defending the 2nd is. I am a member of both orgs. The problem is, as avid defenders of free speech, separation of church and state, supporters of minority and gay rights, they tend to be hated by hard leaning right wingers, many of which are right here in CalGuns. Just like the ACLU is blind to the 2A, many pro-2A types are blind to the values of the ACLU, and paint them a commies, perverts, etc.

nobody_special
05-02-2009, 9:15 AM
Isn't that the American Commie Lovers Union? :)

You can disagree with the political views of the ACLU's founder all you want; but there is really nothing "communist" about an organization that supports civil rights. (Yes they have an agenda, but IMO defending personal rights is never a bad thing.) I wish they'd support the RKBA as well, but their efforts elsewhere are necessary for the preservation of freedoms in this country.

HowardW56
05-02-2009, 9:18 AM
You can disagree with the political views of the ACLU's founder all you want; but there is really nothing "communist" about an organization that supports civil rights. (Yes they have an agenda, but IMO defending personal rights is never a bad thing.) I wish they'd support the RKBA as well, but their efforts elsewhere are necessary for the preservation of freedoms in this country.

I feel the same wau. Look at post #16 here http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=179643

tactic101
05-02-2009, 12:22 PM
The American Civil Liberties Union. It's an org that fights to defend the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments of the Constitution. It is a noble and worthy cause, just as the NRA's defending the 2nd is. I am a member of both orgs. The problem is, as avid defenders of free speech, separation of church and state, supporters of minority and gay rights, they tend to be hated by hard leaning right wingers, many of which are right here in CalGuns. Just like the ACLU is blind to the 2A, many pro-2A types are blind to the values of the ACLU, and paint them a commies, perverts, etc.

Twenty years ago I used to think like you. I get more and more skeptical as I get older, especially of labels that organizations put on themselves.

FWIW:
Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.

Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

You can argue their current stances, but Baldwin was, at least until the Nazi/Soviet pact in 1939, a sympathetic proponent of communism.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry on ACLU has been frozen after being scrubbed of legitimate references to the ACLU founders' Marxist/communist leanings, but you can still get a sense of things on the "talk" page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union#ACLUs_Move_Fro m_Communism

A more reliable source:

In St. Louis Baldwin became attracted to the radical political and social movements that greatly affected his politics until the 1930s. He was a close friend of the anarchist Emma Goldman and he moved in left-wing circles. During the 1920s he joined the I.W.W.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iww#Founding), and in 1927 he visited the Soviet Union, producing from his trip a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets, published in 1928. He broke with the Communists and other radicals only in 1939, after having been horrified by the Nazi-Soviet Pact.http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?id=ark:/88435/ws859f657

AfricanHunter
05-02-2009, 12:33 PM
There are two types of door knockers, paid or volunteer. If you engage in conversation you can find out the believer versus the paid knocker by depth of their belief.

I would not slam the door on them or make snide comments about why their organization only supports part of the bill of rights.

Instead I would have told the person that the ACLU has stood up and defended unpopular views and minorities for years and that they have been a guardian of most of the bill of rights.

It is a shame that the ACLU is hostile to the one right that if gone, all the other rights would become government revocable privileges.

When someone comes to the door, you have a opportunity to talk to someone who would not normally run into people like us.

If they are anti gun and we come off as "jerks", we have just made sure that they stay anti gun.

Nicki

I agree. The conversation I had was friendly, did not rant at her so hopefully she will go and do some research on the issue :thumbsup:

gn3hz3ku1*
05-02-2009, 12:35 PM
i knew to school with someone who works at the ACLU.. cant stand her but i am glad the feels is mutal

MudCamper
05-02-2009, 12:42 PM
Twenty years ago I used to think like you. ...

And how many members of the NRA in the distant past were members of the KKK. Who cares. What matters is what is the org doing today to help fight for my Constitutional rights.

Amacias805
05-02-2009, 5:41 PM
I bet that the majority of them will know the first and maybe the fifth. I can comfortably tell you that when they left my front door, they would be well aware of numbers 2, 4 and 14 at the very least.

when did they add the 14th amendment to the bill of rights :p

7x57
05-02-2009, 5:44 PM
when did they add the 14th amendment to the bill of rights :p

I suppose when SCOTUS decided to ignore the P&I clause on the one hand, but to implicitly incorporate most of the BoR into the EP clause on the other. :p

7x57

7x57
05-02-2009, 6:04 PM
The problem is, as avid defenders of free speech, separation of church and state, supporters of minority and gay rights, they tend to be hated by hard leaning right wingers, many of which are right here in CalGuns.

The problem with the ACLU is that they are not supporters of the actual US Constitution, but rather of another of their own devising that happens to have some similar provisions.

What I mean by that is that (to the extent I've even tried to decode their thinking) they do not seem to believe in Original Meaning in any way, nor in limited government, nor the other principles and ideas behind the Constitution. On some subjects, their views are not too different, but their support is still support from an illegitimate Living Constitution framework.

As a personal example, their version of the disestablishment clause (my term) violates my rights and was intended to, though this is a silly place to argue over that. What isn't silly is the problem that even when they are on the side of something like the actual meaning of the Constitution, their support is still problematic because their framework is *death* to the RKBA.

Basically, there is no enduring right in their interpretive scheme as I understand it, and so when they fight hard for a right it isn't because it is an objective right that is enduringly protected but rather because it is a modern preference whose protection must be established by a legal dialectic.

I hope it's clear in a state like California, where the courts are our only real chance to repeal repression by the majority (and the majority party), and where our rights have been read out of the Constitution by Living Constitutionalist means (think "collective rights interpretation"), that there is no peace between the Living Constitution hermeneutic and the RKBA.

7x57

bondmid003
05-02-2009, 6:11 PM
They haven't been to La Jolla yet, at least not to my knowledge although we did have some lefty energy awareness goober here yesterday

tactic101
05-02-2009, 7:17 PM
And how many members of the NRA in the distant past were members of the KKK. Who cares. What matters is what is the org doing today to help fight for my Constitutional rights.

First off, the NRA founders were Union northerners. Grant, 8th NRA president, put down the KKK with U.S. troops. My point was about the founder of the ACLU, not some disciples.


Secondly, the ACLU doesn't stand for or support the U.S. constitution, per se. See Nadine Strossen, ACLU president:
"I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty."

Third, the ACLU's view of civil liberties does not include consistent support of property rights. If one does not have the liberty to the use of the results of their labor, what use is any other?

This is just the tip of the iceberg; Baldwin's “Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions,” shows the direction the ACLU founder intended.

The fact is that Marxism, communism and socialism have essentially gone underground and their adherents have taken off their uniforms so to speak, not disavowed their tenets. People still hold similar beliefs but have learned in the USA (the Smith act, McCarthyism, etc.) and worldwide to distance themselves from such terminology. It should not surprise anyone that an organization originally set up to defend neither the constitution nor constitutional rights but rather the amorphous civil liberties of communist sympathizers--whose stated goal was the destruction of our society--would now a hundred years later still be the go-to club to join if you wanted to tear down the system from within.

In light of ACLU's ambivalence to personal property rights, 2A is a "collective right" etc., the conclusion is obvious: their actual goals are very different from their publicized stated aims. Their support of the constitution is not only inconsistent, but actually according to their president not pertinent.

On the other hand, you're not the only one happy with their advocacy on certain issues. You can go hi five NAMBLA.

Canute
05-02-2009, 7:35 PM
There are two types of door knockers, paid or volunteer. If you engage in conversation you can find out the believer versus the paid knocker by depth of their belief.

I would not slam the door on them or make snide comments about why their organization only supports part of the bill of rights.

Instead I would have told the person that the ACLU has stood up and defended unpopular views and minorities for years and that they have been a guardian of most of the bill of rights.

It is a shame that the ACLU is hostile to the one right that if gone, all the other rights would become government revocable privileges.

When someone comes to the door, you have a opportunity to talk to someone who would not normally run into people like us.

If they are anti gun and we come off as "jerks", we have just made sure that they stay anti gun.

Nicki

I agree. Partisan smack talk, while it might be entertaining for some, does not help the cause.
I donated to the Nevada ACLU because of its opinion on the second and told the national ACLU that I wouldn't renew with them because of theirs.

SubstanceP
05-02-2009, 8:22 PM
I can comfortably tell you that when they left my front door, they would be well aware of numbers 2, 4 and 14 at the very least.

I'd bring 'em into my study, have them read the Constitution that's mounted on my wall and then I'd educate them on #13 myself. :thumbsup:

And, oh btw, Mr/Ms ACLPew meet my kids. ;)

Doheny
05-02-2009, 8:29 PM
Rush Limbaugh didn't mind the ACLU taking up his cause.

ldivinag
05-02-2009, 10:37 PM
I hope I'm home if they knock here.

I'd ask them to name all of the 10 in the Bill of Rights, to make sure they support each one. We wouldn't get very far.

they count it like this...

one... three... four... five... six... seven... eight... nine... ten.

cousinkix1953
05-02-2009, 11:06 PM
Originally Posted by California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Reply With Quote
He's flip/flopping again. I remember Brown saying that he would defend Proposition 8 in court, before the losers went nuts in the streets. He has done the same with your gun rights. First Moonbeam was on talk radio mocking the Roos-Roberti AWB and calling the BATFE agents criminals after the Waco incident. Now he's the enemy, who demands annual kickbacks from handgun makers, who wish to sell their products in Kommiefornia...

MudCamper
05-03-2009, 10:11 AM
On the other hand, you're not the only one happy with their advocacy on certain issues. You can go hi five NAMBLA.

Woohoo! Finally the NAMBLA reference! :) I wondered what was taking so long...

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.


Let me repeat that last part:

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.

Hopi
05-03-2009, 10:13 AM
The American Civil Liberties Union. It's an org that fights to defend the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments of the Constitution. It is a noble and worthy cause, just as the NRA's defending the 2nd is. I am a member of both orgs. The problem is, as avid defenders of free speech, separation of church and state, supporters of minority and gay rights, they tend to be hated by hard leaning right wingers, many of which are right here in CalGuns. Just like the ACLU is blind to the 2A, many pro-2A types are blind to the values of the ACLU, and paint them a commies, perverts, etc.

Well said.

N6ATF
05-03-2009, 10:37 AM
Woohoo! Finally the NAMBLA reference! :) I wondered what was taking so long...

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html



Let me repeat that last part:

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.

So they prefer to defend repulsive behavior, and not defend civil behavior. Got it! :rolleyes:

doc1buc
05-03-2009, 10:51 AM
Maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age, but if the ACLU drops by my house, as soon as I hear they're from the ACLU, I'll swing my door open wide, turn quickly to look behind me, step off to one side and yell, "FLESH EATER! BONE BREAKER!! KILL! KILL!!"

I have security cameras, so you'd all get to see the video of them running like scalded cats when I post it on YOU TUBE!

:willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly:

That reminds me. I'll have to stop by PetSmart and pick up a couple of HUGE dog dishes and a GIANT chew toy, muddy them up a bit, and leave them by the front door with the upper half of a chewed through heavy duty dog leash tied to the railing.
:rofl:
NICE!!

MudCamper
05-03-2009, 12:44 PM
So they prefer to defend repulsive behavior, and not defend civil behavior. Got it! :rolleyes:

I'll just assume you're being stubborn here, and not that you are unaware of the lessons that the subjects of early twentieth century Germany taught us. But just in case, I'll explain it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came

They came first for the Communists, And I didnít speak up because I wasnít a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didnít speak up because I wasnít a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didnít speak up because I wasnít a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

The ACLU's radical free speech defense policy is an extreme form of prevention of exactly that.

7x57
05-03-2009, 12:49 PM
I'll just assume you're being stubborn here, and not that you are unaware of the lessons that the subjects of early twentieth century Germany taught us. But just in case, I'll explain it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came


The ACLU's radical free speech defense policy is an extreme form of prevention of exactly that.

But made useless by the ACLU's promotion of concentrated federal power and the further destruction of Federalism. The ACLU is playing with fire--it may support a strong right to speech, but a key part of the design of the US government is to deny it the power to oppress in the first place. Because of it's ahistorical reading of the Constitution, the ACLU actually promotes further concentration of power in the hands of the Feds.

When they come for you the ACLU may have defended your right to say whatever it is that annoyed your masters, but they helped to give them the whips and clubs they will use to beat you.

7x57

MudCamper
05-03-2009, 1:15 PM
When they come for you the ACLU may have defended your right to say whatever it is that annoyed your masters, but they helped to give them the whips and clubs they will use to beat you.

Well then support the NRA, CGF, etc. My original point is orgs like the NRA support our 2A right. Orgs like the ACLU do not, but they support the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A. I support both orgs because I support them all. Many here argue that the ACLU is bad because it doesn't defend the 2A. That is ridiculous. Is the NRA bad for defending only the 2A and nothing else? Of course not.

When this argument fails, it always falls to "they're commies!" or "they support NAMBLA!" et al. It's just ignorant bigotry against the typical ACLU member. If I had to be like the typical ACLU member to support them, I wouldn't, just like if I had to be a Republican to be an NRA member I wouldn't support them either. The world isn't as black and white as some here wish it was.

tactic101
05-03-2009, 5:26 PM
Many here argue that the ACLU is bad because it doesn't defend the 2A.

Wrong, my argument is that the ACLU does not defend or believe in the constitution, which makes supporting them problematic for those who support the constitution. Plenty of leftists DO NOT believe in the constitution--our President is one who is on record as having problems with it. If that describes you, fine, just be forthright and say that. Being deliberately obtuse and failing to recognize the difference between your straw man argument (essentially "You're hating on my one-issue organization") and the easily-sourced fact that the ACLU by its own words is not defending the constitution, but following its own, internal leftist logic is disingenuous. The ACLU defending "civil rights" positions that disregard or are in fact contrary to private property rights (see interview with ACLU president Nadine Strossen, http://www.reason.com/news/show/32218.html) is sufficient to conclude that the ACLU has an agenda that goes beyond "civil liberties." A very stupid person can read the above interview and surmise that easily.

It's just ignorant bigotry against the typical ACLU member..

Wrong again, read a little more from the ACLU's current leadership and their positions. They are incompatible with private property rights.

MudCamper
05-03-2009, 5:53 PM
Wrong again, read a little more from the ACLU's current leadership and their positions.

First of all, Nadine Strossen is not the current leadership. And the article you cite is from 1994. Further, I don't particularly care what their past leaders believe, just like I don't care what the past (or current) leaders of the NRA believe. (I'm sure I disagree with them on a whole host of issues.) I care about what they are doing to fight for my Constitutional rights.

Here's the ACLU's blurb on their mission:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

The fact of the matter is, I see them succeeding in this mission on a nearly daily basis.

N6ATF
05-03-2009, 7:22 PM
Many here argue that the ACLU is bad because it doesn't defend the 2A. That is ridiculous. Is the NRA bad for defending only the 2A and nothing else? Of course not.

Of course not. The acronyms tell the story.

ACLU=American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union
I'm sorry, is the 2A not a civil liberty? Not in the eyes of the ACLU! Use all-encompassing terms TRUTHFULLY. They refuse to tell the truth.

NRA=National RIFLE Association

Rifle is not an all-encompassing term. It is a limited term, and therefore can be expanded to other firearms. It does not include ALL CIVIL LIBERTIES.

The fact of the matter is, I see them succeeding in this mission The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities. on a nearly daily basis.

I guess I must be hallucinating a reality where the national organization is 100% opposed to helping these segments of the population (prisoners excluded) stay ALIVE via fighting infringements on our God-given, human, Constitutional, and most importantly, civil right to SELF DEFENSE. And that includes all the other rights enumerated in your post being thrown out the window once they are denied to someone also exercising their 2A rights.

The ACLU has not a care in the world whether we live or die because of their refusal to do exactly what their name says.

Welcome to my ignore list.

MudCamper
05-03-2009, 8:00 PM
Of course not. The acronyms tell the story.

ACLU=American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union
I'm sorry, is the 2A not a civil liberty? Not in the eyes of the ACLU! Use all-encompassing terms TRUTHFULLY. They refuse to tell the truth.

NRA=National RIFLE Association

Rifle is not an all-encompassing term. It is a limited term, and therefore can be expanded to other firearms. It does not include ALL CIVIL LIBERTIES.

So, again, you fall back to your first weak argument, that because they don't defend the 2A, they deserve such vehement hatred. I feel like a parrot, if you want to support the 2A, support the NRA.

I guess I must be hallucinating a reality where the national organization is 100% opposed to helping these segments of the population (prisoners excluded) stay ALIVE via fighting infringements on our God-given, human, Constitutional, and most importantly, civil right to SELF DEFENSE. And that includes all the other rights enumerated in your post being thrown out the window once they are denied to someone also exercising their 2A rights.

The ACLU has not a care in the world whether we live or die because of their refusal to do exactly what their name says.

Welcome to my ignore list.

So, you put me on your ignore list because you cannot convince me to take your side in a debate? That speaks volumes right there.

DDT
05-03-2009, 8:02 PM
Let me repeat that last part:

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.

The problem with that argument is that the ACLU has specifically chosen to NOT support certain rights as enumerated in the Constitution and Amendments. Namely the second amendment. There is very clear precedence from the highest court in the land as well as clear historical documentation that the right is, was originally and historically an individual right.

If the ACLU picks and chooses which forms of civil rights to support and simultaneously chooses to oppose certain other civil rights the only way to interpret that is that they also support the opinions expressed by those they choose to support. If they were not choosing their cases based on content and politics they would not refuse to support cases that related to the second amendment and fourteenth as applied to the second.

MudCamper
05-03-2009, 8:14 PM
The problem with that argument is that the ACLU has specifically chosen to NOT support certain rights as enumerated in the Constitution and Amendments. Namely the second amendment. There is very clear precedence from the highest court in the land as well as clear historical documentation that the right is, was originally and historically an individual right.

If the ACLU picks and chooses which forms of civil rights to support and simultaneously chooses to oppose certain other civil rights the only way to interpret that is that they also support the opinions expressed by those they choose to support. If they were not choosing their cases based on content and politics they would not refuse to support cases that related to the second amendment and fourteenth as applied to the second.

I've already replied to this faulty argument half a dozen times in this thread to bother stating it yet again. All I can think is that hating the ACLU is a form of political dogma for those on the right.

Fjold
05-03-2009, 8:28 PM
Well then support the NRA, CGF, etc. My original point is orgs like the NRA support our 2A right. Orgs like the ACLU do not, but they support the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A. I support both orgs because I support them all. Many here argue that the ACLU is bad because it doesn't defend the 2A. That is ridiculous. Is the NRA bad for defending only the 2A and nothing else? Of course not.

When this argument fails, it always falls to "they're commies!" or "they support NAMBLA!" et al. It's just ignorant bigotry against the typical ACLU member. If I had to be like the typical ACLU member to support them, I wouldn't, just like if I had to be a Republican to be an NRA member I wouldn't support them either. The world isn't as black and white as some here wish it was.

The difference is that the ACLU says that they defend the US Constitution.

"The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country."

Without defending the second amendment. Therefore they are lying


The NRA's sole mission is to defend the Second Amendment and that's all. They don't advertise or pretend to defend the 1st, 4th, 5th, et al.

DDT
05-03-2009, 8:40 PM
I've already replied to this faulty argument half a dozen times in this thread to bother stating it yet again. All I can think is that hating the ACLU is a form of political dogma for those on the right.

I agree. However; if you take the time to look up my previous postings on the ACLU I have traditionally defended them. Until they came out and stated that they had no interest in an entire area of civil rights. Once they decide that some civil rights are worth defending and others are not it is time to start looking at the content of the cases they deem worthy of their attention.

DDT
05-03-2009, 8:46 PM
Well then support the NRA, CGF, etc. My original point is orgs like the NRA support our 2A right. Orgs like the ACLU do not, but they support the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A. I support both orgs because I support them all. Many here argue that the ACLU is bad because it doesn't defend the 2A. That is ridiculous. Is the NRA bad for defending only the 2A and nothing else? Of course not.

First off the NRA doesn't claim to support the full array of civil rights, the ACLU does. Second, the NRA doesn't work against other civil rights and the ACLU opposes the civil rights protected by second amendment.

tactic101
05-03-2009, 9:06 PM
First of all, Nadine Strossen is not the current leadership. And the article you cite is from 1994.

As their leader for two decades who just resigned months ago, quoting her is absolutely valid. She articulated the philosophy of the ACLU when quoted and current philosophy has not changed since she stepped down.

You continue to ignore the crux of my argument. The ACLU does not support the constitution, as evidenced by inconsistent interpretation (narrow or wide, depending on left-leaning whim) of constitutional issues.


Here's the ACLU's blurb on their mission:

Yeah so you signed on for the false flag that they wave in front of you? Our you know its nonsense but expect me to buy it? Drill down on the right side of their homepage on their list of issues and you can see the big picture they are aiming for, a destabilized America, a revisionist America, a weakened America.

ACLU supports illegal immigration. Abolishing the death penalty. Affirmative action. Taxpayer funded political campaigns. Disregard for property rights.

The usual hodge podge of leftist causes. Fine if you support that but it has nothing to do with the constitution or civil liberties, but they should not be tax-exempt.

If you want to support individual rights, why not http://www.cir-usa.org/mission_new.html?

umoja
05-03-2009, 11:20 PM
It's interesting that they defend certain rights but not others.

Whenever the ACLU is brought up in daily conversation, I just sit out. Don't really know what to think of 'em :P

N6ATF
05-03-2009, 11:27 PM
Unfortunately I still see ignored posters in the topic reply notification e-mails.

I didn't realize I was debating. Where's my up-front fee? It does not give me joy to continuously hammer on impenetrable fronts of lies and devil's advocacy for free.

/unsubscribing, until someone pays me to care about the one-sided debate

Mulay El Raisuli
05-04-2009, 8:22 AM
But made useless by the ACLU's promotion of concentrated federal power and the further destruction of Federalism. The ACLU is playing with fire--it may support a strong right to speech, but a key part of the design of the US government is to deny it the power to oppress in the first place. Because of it's ahistorical reading of the Constitution, the ACLU actually promotes further concentration of power in the hands of the Feds.

When they come for you the ACLU may have defended your right to say whatever it is that annoyed your masters, but they helped to give them the whips and clubs they will use to beat you.

7x57


VERY well said.

The Raisuli

CoinStar
05-04-2009, 3:06 PM
the ACLU was founded by a Communist. The purpose of the ACLU is to use the courts to turn the American culture upside down to further the Marxist revolution.


This is a purely rhetorical (and old as the hills) argument against the ACLU, as has been the case for roughly 90% of the other ones made by their detractors here. So far, nobody has been able to present a purely objective argument that actually addresses the ACLU's position on the individual rights that they do support (albeit, selectively).

How or why anyone --especially those who hold strong opinions on the 2A-- would oppose the general principals of an organization that promotes individual liberties is beyond me.

This is a classic case of throwing perfectly good babies out with the bathwater.

Vanguard
05-04-2009, 3:18 PM
Didn't ACLU lawyers defend NAMBLA a few years back?

The ACLU is a sick organization.

HowardW56
05-04-2009, 3:29 PM
Didn't ACLU lawyers defend NAMBLA a few years back?

The ACLU is a sick organization.

I would have thought they would have stayed away from that one...

DDT
05-04-2009, 3:47 PM
How or why anyone --especially those who hold strong opinions on the 2A-- would oppose the general principals of an organization that promotes individual liberties is beyond me.


I think you are right, no one would oppose an organization because they support individual rights. I have heard no one here argue that they oppose the ACLU because they fight for the 1A or 4A rights of people. Where you run into problems is where the ACLU fights to stifle the individual rights of people.

This is where the "totally rhetorical" arguments about the organizations founders comes in. Can you support an organization that was founded by someone who wanted to end private property rights? Or the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? If they were merely selectively choosing certain amendments to support (like the NRA does) I doubt anyone here would have a problem with the ACLU.

But when they are actively working against certain other civil rights we have a problem. When they have non-civil rights related political crusades, we have a problem.

Would you make similar defenses of the NRA if they were actively working to stifle First Amendment rights? or Fourth? I would hope not. Just because a group works for the same things you believe in 50% of the time doesn't mean they are worthy of defense if they are working directly against you the other 50%.

MudCamper
05-04-2009, 4:24 PM
Didn't ACLU lawyers defend NAMBLA a few years back?

Don't the posters in this thread even read the thread?

I posted the ACLU's actual press release regarding this in this very thread.

CoinStar
05-04-2009, 5:02 PM
This is where the "totally rhetorical" arguments about the organizations founders comes in. Can you support an organization that was founded by someone who wanted to end private property rights?

But that's my very point.

It's a logical fallacy to dismiss the actual deeds of the ACLU (which haven't included advancing an agenda ending property rights) by introducing Baldwin's affiliations (which by themselves are rather dubious with respect to the "communist" charge) and then drawing an immediate conclusion that the ACLU opposes property rights.

That's called "poisoning the well".... it's first year college, Logic 101 course material, at best.

CoinStar
05-04-2009, 5:07 PM
Don't the posters in this thread even read the thread?

It seems not, but that's not a shock.

I posted the ACLU's actual press release regarding this in this very thread.

Since this topic is about the local, San Diego chapter of the ACLU, it's equally relevant to point out their recent "defense" of the Minuteman and their battle with CalTrans for their litter-removal sign.

Like many other cases, the ACLU didn't defend the Minuteman as a group, but rather the constitutional issues at hand that happened to relate to the Minuteman --IOW, the presence of the Minuteman group was more incidental than anything. There is a huge difference between the two and it's sadly lost on a lot of posters here.

tactic101
05-04-2009, 8:56 PM
the actual deeds of the ACLU (which haven't included advancing an agenda ending property rights)

Wrong. You should read the ACLU's website. They support public (i.e. taxpayer) funding of political campaigns--this was their stance on McCain Feingold. Forcing taxpayers to fund political speech of those who are at odds with them shows a total disregard for individual property. So does forcing private property store owners to allow speech on their property that they do not want, another ACLU stance. Again, this shows disregard for property rights. This stance has nothing to do with the constitution.

Many of their stances are extra-constitutional, as I have pointed out before. Their stances on abortion and the death penalty are not reflections of the constitution. Illegal immigration is not a "civil liberty" either.

Parse this: The ACLU does not support the constitution per se. They use it, or not, as a means to advance their view of civil rights. Their view of civil liberties involves a host of issues that have nothing to do with the constitution. True of false?

leverage
05-04-2009, 9:51 PM
Probably been brought up in the last 7 pages.. but the best quote from this link is ...

Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . .

DDT
05-04-2009, 9:56 PM
But that's my very point.

It's a logical fallacy to dismiss the actual deeds of the ACLU (which haven't included advancing an agenda ending property rights) by introducing Baldwin's affiliations (which by themselves are rather dubious with respect to the "communist" charge) and then drawing an immediate conclusion that the ACLU opposes property rights.

That's called "poisoning the well".... it's first year college, Logic 101 course material, at best.

It would help if you actually read my post in full. I did not condemn all of their deeds. I, in fact, said "I have heard no one here argue that they oppose the ACLU because they fight for the 1A or 4A rights of people." It is deeds fighting in direct opposition of 2A rights that bring up the most immediate issues. I truly can't figure out how one can claim to support both CalGuns AND an anti-2A organization. You might as well support VCP or the Brady Campaign.

STAGE 2
05-05-2009, 1:05 AM
Well then support the NRA, CGF, etc. My original point is orgs like the NRA support our 2A right. Orgs like the ACLU do not, but they support the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A. I support both orgs because I support them all. Many here argue that the ACLU is bad because it doesn't defend the 2A. That is ridiculous. Is the NRA bad for defending only the 2A and nothing else? Of course not.

Wrong. The ACLU isn't bad because it fails to support the 2A. Its bad because it actively tries to tear down the second and parts of the first amendment.


When this argument fails, it always falls to "they're commies!" or "they support NAMBLA!" et al. It's just ignorant bigotry against the typical ACLU member. If I had to be like the typical ACLU member to support them, I wouldn't, just like if I had to be a Republican to be an NRA member I wouldn't support them either. The world isn't as black and white as some here wish it was.

No person of conscience would ever have anything to do with NAMBLA. Sorry but its the truth. Because they have an acronym and call themselves an organization doesn't change the fact that they are simply a bunch of pedophiles advocating illegal activity. What these guys need isn't a lawyer, but a .45 caliber slug to the back of the head.

The fact that the ACLU came running to their defense tells me everything I need to know about them.

Sunwolf
05-05-2009, 6:14 AM
American Communist liberties Union

tactic101
05-05-2009, 7:06 AM
All you really need to know about the ACLU is that they do things like this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/aclu_defends_nazis_right_to_burn

(Yes, it is a parody.)

7x57
05-05-2009, 7:40 AM
So far, nobody has been able to present a purely objective argument that actually addresses the ACLU's position on the individual rights that they do support (albeit, selectively).


You clearly did not understand my argument. The ACLU does not support the civil liberties found in the US Constitution, nor does it support a hermeneutic that gives the Constitution an enduring, fixed meaning. By design it promotes a hermeneutic which reads into the Constitution the rights the ACLU wishes to find there. In other words, the ACLU has a list of rights before it ever looks at the Constitution, and then finds ways to argue for *their* list. The source of their list is, in fact, the consensus of those liberal thinkers they regard as leading edge--part of the antithesis, in other words. The ACLU is first and foremost an agent of antithetical change, and as the Constitution was written by men of the bad old thesis, there simply would be no percentage whatsoever in it ever promoting a hermeneutic which finds the Constitution to have an enduring meaning. That would obstruct the synthetic evolution of law to reflect the synthetic evolution of ethics.

It is pardonable for someone to miss this in cases like speech, where the distance between the ACLU's consensually defined right and the right Conceived by the framers is not large. The antithetical consensus has not repudiated that part of the thesis it opposes. But on other particular rights, the distance can be very large. The RKBA is one extreme example: since there is no such right on the ACLU's list, they must find a way to read it out of the Constitution. The made-up collective rights theory serves fine, because the ACLU doesn't believe in original meaning at all. How could it? That would stand in the way of the law changing to track ever-improving ethical consensus of mankind (or at least of the thought-leaders of the antithesis).

This is not an isolated case, as the ACLU's apologists would like us to believe. It is a necessary consequence of their worldview and role in promoting consensual ethics and law. Another extreme example is the First Amendment clause forbidding Establishment of a national church. That is pretty much all it forbids, because that's all the founders wanted it to forbid. But that is another part of the thesis the antithesis regards as outdated at best, and positively horrible at worst. And so the ACLU finds in that clause a wall of separation doctrine that gives a positive legal disability to anyone whose religion is traditional enough not to simply parrot the secular consensus. My rights as an American are violated by this doctrine, pursued with all possible vigor by the ACLU.

Beyond the problem of any given right the ACLU may or may not defend, ignore, or twist is the interpretive one. Every time the ACLU defends a right it understands in something like historically accurate terms, it does so on the basis of the living constitution. So even when it wins a victory for, say, free speech, that victory is also a victory for the view that the Constitution does not protect enduring, fixed rights which cannot be taken away at the whim of either society or the state, but rather that it is a tool of debate in the struggle between whatever whim of society (in reality the whim of the ivy-league professors and other thought leaders of the left) represents the latest thinking of the left and the bad, old thinking it must replace--even if that thinking is precisely what the Constitution historically meant. In other words, to the ACLU the Constitution is simply a tool of the antithesis to overcome the thesis.

The point is that the ACLU's apologists have implied the following picture: for some unaccountable reason the ACLU only defends a subset of the BoR, but they understand that subset to be grounded in the enduring meaning of the Constitution and promote that meaning. But this is simply an illusion fostered by the fact that on certain prominent rights such as speech they do not differ so greatly. But fundamentally the ACLU is not defending the BoR at all--they don't really believe it means anything fixed and objective anyway, and if it does it simply encapsulates the thinking of the leading edge of the antithesis of the late eighteenth century, which long ago became the bad old thesis. They are defending the momentary consensus of the left's thought leaders, but doing so based on an interpretive scheme powerful enough to find anything they wish in the text of the Constitution.

There is a saying that "the purpose of modern theology is to express Unbelief in the language of Belief." That is true, and the professors of law have adopted the same approach to the Constitution so that we might also say "the purpose of the Living Constitution is to express absolute-statism in the language of Federalism."

It's been marvelously effective, too. But what does it mean for gunnies? Just this--even when the ACLU might be on your side and win, you still lose. You lose first because they aren't promoting precisely the right you believe in--just try and get the ACLU to defend gun shows under right of association or speech, but mainly you lose because when they win they win because the courts accepted the Living Constitution scheme. That scheme can read any right out of the Constitution that law professors and judges wish was not there, just as it can read any right into the Constitution that they wish was there. And judges and law professors wish the Second Amendment did not exist. So each win makes it easier to use that scheme to destroy the RKBA.

Fundamentally, a BoR that does not have a fixed, enduring, discoverable meaning is not a BoR in our sense. It protects nothing. The founders knew that, and intended it to protect against the tyranny of the majority. But once interpreted as a Living Document, it does not protect against the tyranny of the majority, or at least the majority of the left's thought leaders. It instead becomes their handmaiden.

It becomes a list of privileges of those who interpret it, not a list of rights for those who cannot do so themselves. Which answers the challenge I started with: even on speech, the ACLU's version does not include speech like holding a gun show at the Alameda County fairgrounds, or openly carrying a firearm, or (as in Virginia peaceably gathering armed in the statehouse to lobby as law-abiding gun owners. For that matter, I doubt their version of Free Press includes the right of conservative talk-radio hosts to broadcast their views on AM radio. How could it? Their right is not that of the First Amendment, and does not protect the speech of thesis. It only protects the speech of the antithesis.

If you like the fact that as gun owners you have no protected right to speak the truth about the 2A and the political necessity of its existence, then by all means send money to the ACLU.

7x57

steve40
05-10-2009, 11:33 AM
hahaha, all you guys in this tread sound super pissed-off. lol :rolleyes:

low94noma
05-10-2009, 12:48 PM
I sure hope I am home if they come knocking on my door. I would love to hear what the reps have to say up here.

steve40
05-10-2009, 5:04 PM
I sure hope I am home if they come knocking on my door. I would love to hear what the reps have to say up here.

same here