PDA

View Full Version : Aclu?


NorCal MedTac
04-19-2006, 9:44 PM
Does the ACLU support the second amendment or just all others? I have no idea so I was hoping for others opinions. That damn Colbert Report always gives me questions.

Mssr. Eleganté
04-19-2006, 9:51 PM
The ACLU says they support the Second Amendment...

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

But they say that the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

taloft
04-19-2006, 9:55 PM
Given the supporting historical opinions of the great men who wrote the Constitution, I find the ACLU opinion on the matter to be fallacious and two-faced.

bu-bye
04-19-2006, 9:58 PM
They are group that has turned on the people of this country and supported the scum of the earth. They will fight because they they want to keep their jobs not because its the right thing to do.

I think every one of them should be dragged out to the street and shot. They are a joke and a waste of millions of dollars.

phish
04-19-2006, 10:15 PM
ACLU can KMFBA

:D

jdberger
04-19-2006, 11:28 PM
Though I'm a card carrying member <flame suit on> there are a number of things that they do that are absolutely stupid. And their stance on the Second Amendment is disingenuous.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles.Then A)stand up for the rights of all Americans to own machine guns (repeal the NFA); B)Stand up for our rights to own AWs in this state...
cause a bunch of Chechens and Iraqis armed with handguns and hunting rifles (7.62x39=30/30) are doing a damn decent job against tanks and helicopters.

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. They didn't teach Amendment 2.5 where I went to lawschool.
Transportation being necessary to a vibrant economy, the right to keep and drive a car shall not be infringed. <*****hats>

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.Asinine logic and ungrounded in fact. See my first example.

well...that's the end of my rant.......:mad:

Muzz
04-19-2006, 11:36 PM
It really stands for:

American Criminal Liberties Union

EBWhite
04-20-2006, 1:18 AM
Unless you are a criminal, liberal, or a minority---

ACLU does not apply to you

C.G.
04-20-2006, 1:49 AM
It really stands for:

American Criminal Liberties Union

Another example of a good organization gone awry.

Omega13device
04-20-2006, 6:41 AM
They are not perfect, but they are out there protecting our civil rights. You may not always like who they are protecting, but if you're going to protect rights you can't pick and choose. They didn't win a lot of popularity points defending the rights of Nazis in the US, but someone has to do it.

That said, I think their stand on the 2nd Amendment is absurd and overly colored by politics. But I don't agree with every single thing the NRA says either.

MrTuffPaws
04-20-2006, 7:44 AM
Ah, all of the love for the ACLU.

I am glad they are around, and they will support anyone who asks. They even offered to help Rush when they tried to subpoena his medical records.

As for their support of the 2nd, it is non-existent, which is a real shame. They hold the same view point as the 39 ruling by the supreme court, which is nothing but hypocrisy to me, but they do well with the other amendments.

superhondaz50
04-20-2006, 8:55 AM
as far as i'm concerned the ACLU is a terrorist organization!

DrjonesUSA
04-20-2006, 10:40 AM
Ah, the ACLU.

Founded and currently operated by communists.

Fighting to destroy everything about America.


The following sums them up quite nicely:

http://echikin.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/aclu.jpg


http://www.right-magazine.com/images/aclu-shirt.gif

http://www.commongoode.homestead.com/ACLU/files/Cover_ACLU_op_560x800.jpg


http://www.edwimmer.com/ec/images/aclu.gif


And here's a good article on them:

http://www.commongoode.homestead.com/ACLU/

MrTuffPaws
04-20-2006, 2:19 PM
Ah ha ha ha. Man, you would think the ACLU is made out of baby eating fascist commie lizard people from planet Pro-Gay by reading some of the comments on here.

DrjonesUSA
04-20-2006, 2:27 PM
Ah ha ha ha. Man, you would think the ACLU is made out of baby eating fascist commie lizard people from planet Pro-Gay by reading some of the comments on here.


If you think otherwise, you do not know anything about the ACLU.

glen avon
04-20-2006, 2:41 PM
much of the ACLU legal work is performed by volunteers.

we could counter in kind if we cared.

the aclu, right or wrong, wins because they want it more.

whose fault is that?

glen avon
04-20-2006, 2:43 PM
Ah ha ha ha. Man, you would think the ACLU is made out of baby eating fascist commie lizard people from planet Pro-Gay by reading some of the comments on here.

no, but mandatory gay marriage in taxpayer funded abortion clinics *is* #1 on their agenda. :D

bwiese
04-20-2006, 2:48 PM
no, but mandatory gay marriage in taxpayer funded abortion clinics *is* #1 on their agenda. :D

Fine with me, if they support RKBA.

They do seem to be useful in stopping the 'creationist'/"(non)intelligent design" onslaught in schools.

TMC
04-20-2006, 2:49 PM
Its interesting how they believe the 2nd is a "collective right" but none of the other Amendements are. All of the other Amendments applying to the individual do not expressly state the individual or people and ACLU treats as if that are carved in stone, but the 2nd actually states "the right of the people" and they see that as a collective right of the state. Amazing!

I'd love for someone to ask them how they came about this thinking and ask "if the 2nd Amendment is a collective right of the state then how come the 1st Amendement isn't also, allowing the states to regulate speech?"

blacklisted
04-20-2006, 4:48 PM
Founder of the ACLU:

* I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

* When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children.

* I saw in the Soviet Union many opponents of the regime. I visited a dozen prisons — the political sections among them. I saw considerable of the work of the OGPU. I heard a good many stories of severity, even of brutality, and many of them from the victims. While I sympathized with personal distress I just could not bring myself to get excited over the suppression of opposition when I stacked it up against what I saw of fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion.

* [I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept "workers' democracy" as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done.


I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union.... I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.

Omega13device
04-20-2006, 5:32 PM
Founder of the ACLU:
yadda yadda yadda

Written in 1934 and recanted in 1939. So what?

bwiese
04-20-2006, 5:56 PM
I want one of those Christian hunting scopes pictured a few posts above.

blacklisted
04-20-2006, 6:17 PM
Written in 1934 and recanted in 1939. So what?

It shows his true colors. I will also have no part in an organization that picks and chooses what rights we deserve.

caliar15
04-20-2006, 6:40 PM
I want one of those Christian hunting scopes pictured a few posts above.
Yes we already know you hate Christians and Policemen, do you have anything constructive to add to the TOPIC?

DPC
04-20-2006, 6:41 PM
The ACLU = American Communist Lawyers Union

DrjonesUSA
04-21-2006, 8:31 AM
Written in 1934 and recanted in 1939. So what?


Where do you get that it was recanted?

Source, please.

glen avon
04-21-2006, 10:01 AM
They do seem to be useful in stopping the 'creationist'/"(non)intelligent design" onslaught in schools.

wow. that's mighty enlightened of you. I hope in the future you can bear your unfortunate burden of being too smart for religion in the privacy of your own world and leave your insults at home.

if we Christian troglodytes decide we need your enlightenment, or your derision, we will ask for it, thank you.

until then, we will continue to pray for you.

maxicon
04-21-2006, 10:10 AM
I'm always amused by the anti-ACLU emotions on the gun boards. It reminds me a lot of the anti-NRA emotions from liberals.

The ACLU primarily fights from freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the rights of the accused, reducing law enforcement agency abuses, and such. These are all good things, and our country would definitely be a less free place without their support. They support the rest of our rights the way the NRA supports RKBA.

Their agenda is primarily left-leaning libertarian, with the major exception of the 2nd amendment. People call them socialist, but they're really not, and there's nothing communist about them whatsoever.

Now, people might not like all the things they fight for, but it boils down to supporting specific rights, even when they're used to support things others may find distasteful, and I'm all for broad rights.

If anyone has a specific example of something they're doing that's communist, socialist, whatever, please point to it. I'd be interested in seeing it.

max

bwiese
04-21-2006, 10:15 AM
Yes we already know you hate Christians and Policemen, do you have anything constructive to add to the TOPIC?

Well, I like (most) Christians better than (most) Policemen. I don't have to pay a (direct) tax for them being Christians.

I don't hate christians, I just feel sorry for their lack of rationality and that they need a mental crutch for survival...

DrjonesUSA
04-21-2006, 10:22 AM
I don't hate christians, I just feel sorry for their lack of rationality and that they need a mental crutch for survival...


Then you'd better move out of America, as this country was founded by men who were Christian, and others such as Jefferson, who, while not decidedly Christian, definitely beleived in the Christian God.

bwiese
04-21-2006, 10:35 AM
Then you'd better move out of America, as this country was founded by men who were Christian, and others such as Jefferson, who, while not decidedly Christian, definitely beleived in the Christian God.

Um, many of our founders had a healthy disregard for organized religion and were what are termed 'Deists' and were in no way true church-going Christian.

And even so, the fact they're Christian 250 years ago shouldn't matter today.

In 230+ years, people can learn something.

Major Miner II
04-21-2006, 10:37 AM
And even so, the fact they're Christian 250 years ago shouldn't matter today.

In 230+ years, people can learn something.
Which is why we need gun control now.

Right?

:rolleyes:

DrjonesUSA
04-21-2006, 10:38 AM
Um, many of our founders had a healthy disregard for organized religion and were what are termed 'Deists' and were in no way true church-going Christian.

And even so, the fact they're Christian 250 years ago shouldn't matter today.

In 230+ years, people can learn something.


I said that some of them were deists, notably Jefferson.

Precisely which God do you think he believed in? Allah? Buddah?

As far as your time comment, isn't that exactly what people say about the Second Amendment; that it is no longer applicable in today's "modern, civilized" world?

I mean, after 230 years, people can learn that they don't need guns, right?

Major Miner II
04-21-2006, 10:40 AM
I mean, after 230 years, people can learn that they don't need guns, right?
HA! Beat you to that one! ;)

bwiese
04-21-2006, 10:49 AM
HA! Beat you to that one! ;)

False argument. The idea religion affects rights is moot. (In fact, religion usually reduces rights.)

I never said our fundamental freedoms were subject to revision. Those are rights, and they were not granted to us - rather, they cannot be abridged (CA/NY excepted, unfortunately).

DrjonesUSA
04-21-2006, 10:52 AM
I'm always amused by the anti-ACLU emotions on the gun boards. It reminds me a lot of the anti-NRA emotions from liberals.

The ACLU primarily fights from freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the rights of the accused, reducing law enforcement agency abuses, and such. These are all good things, and our country would definitely be a less free place without their support. They support the rest of our rights the way the NRA supports RKBA.

Their agenda is primarily left-leaning libertarian, with the major exception of the 2nd amendment. People call them socialist, but they're really not, and there's nothing communist about them whatsoever.

Now, people might not like all the things they fight for, but it boils down to supporting specific rights, even when they're used to support things others may find distasteful, and I'm all for broad rights.

If anyone has a specific example of something they're doing that's communist, socialist, whatever, please point to it. I'd be interested in seeing it.

max




Source: http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html


"By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin [Founder of the ACLU] had carved out a well-established reputation as America's foremost civil libertarian.

He was, at the same time, one of the nation's leading figures in left-of-center circles.

Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, [b]Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes.

Baldwin's expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush.

Raised in the Boston suburb of Wellesley Hills, Baldwin's ancestral roots were rich and comfortable. [Typical of many on the left; they are communists because they can afford to be. He was clearly a typical elitist.]


Inevitably, as he later noted, Baldwin attended Harvard College during the period when the Progressive movement unfolded, with its calls for righting some of the wrongs resulting from the process of rapid modernization.


As the period of direct U.S. involvement in World War I approached, Baldwin ended up in New York where he became a leading figure in the American Union Against Militarism. Concerned about the plight of wartime dissidents, including the members of the Industrial Workers of the World, Baldwin eventually headed the National Civil Liberties Bureau."


Nope, nothing communist there. :rolleyes: And that is from a leftist source. Check out the stuff below:



Roger Baldwin

Roger Baldwin, the first director of the ACLU, was also a communist. [b]He explains in his book, Liberty Under the Soviets, "I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…” Roger Baldwin - Founded the ACLU in 1920.

Several crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party. Earl Browder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party. Baldwin also stated “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.” (source: http://dianedew.com/aclu.htm)



William Z. Foster

William Z. Foster, then National Chairman of the Communist Party USA and an ACLU co-founder, is famous for this 1932 quote: "The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." He was the author of "Toward Soviet America."



A.J. Muste

A. J. Muste held a degree from Union Theological Seminary. When war broke out in Europe, he became a pacifist, inspired by the Christian mysticism of the Quakers, and started working with the fledging American Civil Liberties Union in Boston. In 1929 Muste helped form the Conference for Progressive Labor Action (CPLA), seeking to reform the AF of L from within. When the Depression broke like a storm over America, the CPLA became openly revolutionary and was instrumental in forming the American Workers Party in 1933--a "democratically organized revolutionary party" in which A.J. played the leading role.


Source for the above three paragraphs: http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/stokjok/Founders.html


Also:


On January 16, 1981, President Jimmy Carter awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin, calling him 'a champion of human and civil rights.' [b]Under the guise of 'protecting American civil rights', Baldwin's ACLU has sued to;

* Halt the singing of Christmas Carols in public facilities.
* Deny tax -exempt status for Churches.
* Remove all military chaplains.
* Remove all Christian symbols from public property.
* Prohibit Bible reading in classrooms even during free time.
* Remove In God We Trust from our coins.
* Remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance
* Deny federal funding for Boy Scouts until they admit gays and atheists

The ACLU championed the gay rights movement and Roe v. Wade. In 1977, the ACLU created its "Reproductive Freedom Project" that, over the next 16 years, utilized 17 full-time employees and a budget of $2 million. In 1986 the ACLU created its "Lesbian and Gay Rights" project. Some other causes adopted by the ACLU include the rights of AIDS patients to keep their diseases confidential and denying freedom of worship in public places.

In 1986, 5th grade teacher Kenneth Roberts was ordered, following an ACLU suit, to remove his Bible from his classroom. (In 2001, it sued the Anahein public school system for refusing to put pro-homosexual propaganda in the district's high school libraries.) In 1988, it barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured." In 1997, the ACLU convinced the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children. In May 2000, Arizona Governor Jane Hull issued a proclamation celebrating the birth of Buddha. An ACLU spokesperson said, "Although we may think proclamations are inappropriate, they may not violate the Constitution." (But two years earlier, when Governor Hull issued a proclamation declaring a "Bible Week," the ACLU sued, claiming a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state.")


Source: http://www.dms489.com/ACLU.html


*************

If you STILL want to believe that the ACLU is anything less than an avowed enemy of the American People, feel free to spend 5 minutes with Google like I did.

Major Miner II
04-21-2006, 10:56 AM
False argument. The idea religion affects rights is moot. (In fact, religion usually reduces rights.)

I never said our fundamental freedoms were subject to revision. Those are rights, and they were not granted to us - rather, they cannot be abridged (CA/NY excepted, unfortunately).
I call BS

Our "fundamental rights" have been steadily revised for 200 years. It's one of the reasons the founding fathers set a supreme court in place.

Just beacause you don't think the 2nd should be revised doesn't mean it shouldn't be, or hasn't been. As *you* said, people and things change in 200 years.

Or are you a literalist?

glen avon
04-21-2006, 11:11 AM
False argument. The idea religion affects rights is moot. (In fact, religion usually reduces rights.)

please explain why the argument is false. you may begin by presenting your understanding of the argument presented. after we establish what the argument is, then we can go on to your assertion that the argument is false. because you hold yourself to be too rational to be religious, and because "false argument" is a term of art for logic and debate, I wil expect you to present your position in conventional, logic-based debate terms.

and please explain with detail and supporting facts why you assert the argument that religion affects rights is moot.

"it's go time."

Joe Register
04-21-2006, 11:36 AM
I believe Ramona Ripston is the head of the ACLU in SoCal or maybe all of CA. She is married to Steven Reinhardt who is on the 9th circuit court of appeals. If his name is familiar it is because he wrote the Silveira opinion a few years ago (among many other interesting opinions). Read the opinion and decide for yourself. His view on the 2nd amendment will tell you what you need to know about the ACLU. It is also "the law" now.

Joe Register
04-21-2006, 4:14 PM
I certainly don't see it that way and I am not sure the courts (excluding a certain Carter appointee in the 9th) have ruled that way. What exactly are you basing that on? Not being confrontational - just interested in how you came to that conclusion.

DrjonesUSA
04-21-2006, 4:19 PM
While I believe that, technically, treelogger is correct in that many/most court cases take a collective view of the 2A, I'd like to point out that I'm sure a whole lot of courts ruled that slavery was legal/Constitutional.

VeryCoolCat
04-21-2006, 4:40 PM
I refuse to believe that the bill of rights is up to interpretation on that level where "You interpret it however you want it".

The First 10 Ammendments address specfically the rights of any CITIZEN. I find it weird that the 2nd one would be up to scrutiny.

If you read the ammendments you'll notice the way its written, there commas are explicitly placed. The fact it says EXACTLY:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

I mean, it explicitly says "THE PEOPLE" the only times thats used in the constitution is to refer to individual citizens.

If you can take the 2nd ammendment in interpretation of that way... then you can take the 1st ammendment this way.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Never explicitly says "THE PEOPLE have the right to free speech." Just freedom of religion and press.

Otherwise it wouldn't be called " THE BILL OF RIGHTS " Emphasis on RIGHT. specifically YOUR RIGHTS.

maxicon
04-21-2006, 6:08 PM
Some snippage of material to keep it manageable...

Source: http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html


"By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin [Founder of the ACLU] had carved out a well-established reputation as America's foremost civil libertarian.

...
Nope, nothing communist there. And that is from a leftist source.


I didn't say anything about the founder of ACLU and what his leanings were - he has zero bearing on what the organization is and does today.

Give me any link to anything the ACLU has done in the past, say, 20 years, that is communist. This can be either the formal definition of communism or the common usage definition of communism (ie, totalitarian communism).



Under the guise of 'protecting American civil rights', Baldwin's ACLU has sued to;

* Halt the singing of Christmas Carols in public facilities.
* Deny tax -exempt status for Churches.
* Remove all military chaplains.
* Remove all Christian symbols from public property.
* Prohibit Bible reading in classrooms even during free time.
* Remove In God We Trust from our coins.
* Remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance
* Deny federal funding for Boy Scouts until they admit gays and atheists


This is basic rights stuff. I don't want the government sponsoring or favoring any one religion over another - I don't care which is someone's favorite.

Likewise, government-funded organizations shouldn't be allowed to exclude people for their race, sex, beliefs, age, sexual orientation, whatever. If they want to be exclusive, well, they can do it on their own dime, not the taxpayers'. It's their choice.

I don't want religion in schools, courthouses, or in any tax-funded organizations. Religion should be in the heart, the home, and the church - not in the government and in taxpayer-funded facilities. I personally don't care what it says on the money (but some do), or what people do in their free time.

Heck, I'd think Christians would object to their God being invoked on money - didn't Jesus have some lessons on that? I guess you could make arguments regarding which God is being invoked, with the pyramid in the eye and all.


The ACLU championed the gay rights movement and Roe v. Wade. In 1977, the ACLU created its "Reproductive Freedom Project" that, over the next 16 years, utilized 17 full-time employees and a budget of $2 million. In 1986 the ACLU created its "Lesbian and Gay Rights" project. Some other causes adopted by the ACLU include the rights of AIDS patients to keep their diseases confidential and denying freedom of worship in public places.

In 1986, 5th grade teacher Kenneth Roberts was ordered, following an ACLU suit, to remove his Bible from his classroom. (In 2001, it sued the Anahein public school system for refusing to put pro-homosexual propaganda in the district's high school libraries.) In 1988, it barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured." In 1997, the ACLU convinced the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children. In May 2000, Arizona Governor Jane Hull issued a proclamation celebrating the birth of Buddha. An ACLU spokesperson said, "Although we may think proclamations are inappropriate, they may not violate the Constitution." (But two years earlier, when Governor Hull issued a proclamation declaring a "Bible Week," the ACLU sued, claiming a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state.")

So, they're fighting for the rights of individuals, including the right to privacy and the rights of oppressed minorities, and against government sponsorship of religion. This is all good, IMO. Did they have the Supreme Court under some kind of mind control, or did the SCOTUS just agree with them that certain rights need extra protection?

They're not saying you can't tell people your personal info if you want or worship whatever god you want, just that other people can't disclose your personal info and government employees can't officially support religions.


If you STILL want to believe that the ACLU is anything less than an avowed enemy of the American People, feel free to spend 5 minutes with Google like I did.

Thanks, but I'm quite familiar with what they are and what they do. You seem to be leaving out a rather large portion of the American People in that statement, as many of the American People support the ACLU.

Remember, not everyone's like you. Many of us believe in different things - things that would have gotten us fired in the 1950s or lynched in the 1850s. Sure, you get some bad with the good, but give me the choice between more rights and fewer rights, and I'll pick more rights every time.

This is what they're all about, IMO - protecting the rights of people to have unpopular opinions and do unpopular things that fall under the umbrella of basic rights.

Nazis marching, NAMBLA publishing newsletters, whatever - I may not agree with their goals, but I agree that they have the right to state their opinions and make themselves heard. Any other choice leads to a gradual silencing of anyone the government or public majority doesn't agree with, and that might just be me some day.

A great deal of what the ACLU does is aimed at reducing the power of the government, and that doesn't fit with either communism or socialism as they are practiced today. I think it's a Good Thing. YMMV, as always.

max

Omega13device
04-21-2006, 6:27 PM
lots of good comments snipped for space...



Well said.

Protecting rights is the right thing to do. Maybe you don't agree with or don't like the people whose rights they're protecting, but rights are rights and they apply to all citizens. I am no fan of Nazis but I am all for protecting their rights to free speech because if the government can trample on the Nazis' rights to speak and march, the next thing you know they will be trampling on mine.

I don't agree with their stance on the 2nd amendment but you can't have everything.

blacklisted
04-21-2006, 7:50 PM
I don't agree with their stance on the 2nd amendment but you can't have everything.

Yes, you can. :D

blacklisted
04-21-2006, 10:12 PM
The biggest one is a 1939 supreme court decision (the Miller decision) that fundamentally says that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, and applies only to a militia. Clearly, no Carter appointee was involved here.

Google for 1939 supreme court miller, and you'll find the text of the decision. I think it was about some NFA weapon (let's say for fun a sawed-off shotgun, I don't remember the details). In a nutshell the decision says that the NFA can restrict ownership of that shotgun, because the 2nd amendment's purpose is only to allow creation of a militia (which is defined as a collection of people capable of defending themselves in an organized and disciplined fashion, such as the national guard), and a sawed-off shotgun is not useful for a national guard, so the right to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun is not protected under the 2nd amendment.

There are a few other supreme court or federal court decisions about the 2nd amendment. None has ever said that it protects the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms for purposes such as hunting, sporting, collecting, or just plain enjoying them. The purpose of the 2nd amendment seems to be enabling the creation of a militia, no more and no less.

I'm terribly sorry to bring this up, at this is clearly painful and distasteful to some. But this is not my doing, it's not me interpreting the constitution here. Don't bother argueing with me; if you have a problem with this, feel free to argue in front of the supreme court (which has in the recent past rejected all 2nd-amendment related cases, which seems to be imply that it is happy with the current state of affairs).

This is the reason why I think it is so foolish to rely on the 2nd amendment, and equally foolish to add an exact copy of the 2nd amendment to the CA constitution.

Keep in mind that they have never heard a good case for the second amendment. If they did, there is TONS of evidence (such as writings by the people that wrote it) that it does apply to individuals.

Of course, if it didn't, most of us are members of the "militia" anyway.

This argument disregards the understanding of the "Militia" at the time of the Founding. As used in the Second Amendment, and elsewhere in the Constitution, "Militia" referred to a body consisting of all adult male citizens up to a certain age (anywhere from forty-five to sixty), the goal being to include all who were physically capable of service. It was not limited to a select force of persons in active military duty. This entire population of able-bodied male citizens was involuntarily "enrolled" by local militia officials, somewhat as men now register for the selective service (except that enrollment required no action by the citizen), and all enrolled citizens were required by law to join occasional "exercise" - to which they were expected to bring their own, private arms - but they otherwise remained in civilian life. The militia "rest[ed] upon the shoulders of the people," (88) because, as then understood, it consisted of a large number of the "people" at any one time and of all of the able-bodied white men for a substantial portion of their lives. It was the people embodied as an armed force. Thus, a key aspect of the term "Militia" was the composition of the force to which it referred. As a result, the reference to the "Militia" in the Second Amendment's preface "agrees with" the individual right that the Amendment's operative text sets out, (89) because securing to "the people" a right to keep and to bear their own arms made such a broad-based, privately armed force more likely to exist and to be effective. (90)

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

This talks about United States v. Miller as well as many other interesting things:

A Second Amendment challenge to this Act produced Miller in 1939, the closest that the Supreme Court has come to interpreting the substance of the Amendment. Miller and a co-defendant were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and the district court sustained their Second Amendment challenge to the indictment. On appeal by the Government, neither defendant appeared or filed a brief. (9) The Court, in reversing and remanding, held that the sawed-off shotgun was not among the "Arms" protected by the Second Amendment absent "evidence tending to show that" its use or possession "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Citing an 1840 decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Aymette v. State, the Court concluded that it was not "within judicial notice" that a sawed-off shotgun was a weapon that was "any part of the ordinary military equipment" or whose use "could contribute to the common defence." Absent evidence, therefore, the Court could not "say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." (10)

Hmm, imagine if there was a compentent defense (or a comptetent defendant!) and they presented evidence that short barreled shotguns and machine guns did indeed have a military purpose. Does anyone argue that machine guns, another item regulated by the NFA, do not have a military/militia purpose and are such not protected by the Second amendment? Think about it.

Basically, if the Supreme Court did hear a case on the second amendment, there is so much evidence (even the government thinks so), they would rule that it applies to individuals. I believe they have a motive for not hearing such a case.

blacklisted
04-21-2006, 10:45 PM
I don't think that the second amendment was not intented to apply to all military weapons, it was really meant for basic infantry arms (in this case would be the M60, M16, and M9 (and whatever else is used), not vehicles and not necesarrily artillery pieces. I believe that the founding fathers knew that even with basic weapons, resistance can be effective. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan (for the Russians), Chechnya, and Vietnma for examples. A bunch of idiots with obsolete russian guns (and lots of IEDs) can effectively fight off a modern military. Obviously they lose a lot more men, but the demoralizing effects alone can accomplish quite a bit.

There is of course no "right" to go hunting, and even if there was, hunting is not necessarily done with firearms. That is not the issue.

Also keep in mind that militia does not mean "national guard" in the context that it was written. The National Guard was not even around until 100 years after the amendment was written. So "militia" could be extended (even under modern law) to include both the national guard, state militias, and all men between the ages of 17 and 45 (or perhaps older).

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Joe Register
04-21-2006, 10:51 PM
Treelogger, I think you should read Miller again. Saying that a shotgun is not the type of weapon used by the militia was basically saying that it wasn't military enough. It is the equivilant of saying today that an AR15 isn't military enough because it isn't an M16. Miller doesn't say anything about a collective right though the ACLU (and Brady, VPC, LCAV and such) would like to portray it that way. Most serious legal scholars - even the ones that find guns distasteful - agree that the 2nd amendment - like all the amendments in the bill of rights - apply to individuals.

It was a big deal for Reinhardt to get in the language in the 2002 opinion that there was no individual 2nd amendment right. He cherry picked that case because he saw an opening to do so. I laughed when he had to modify the opinion a few months later to remove the references to disgraced scholar Michael Bellesiles.

Before you rumble on about free speech and the ACLU read the opinion that just was reported yesterday out of the 9th circuit from - who else - Reinhardt. You can not wear a tee shirt to school now that hurts someone elses feelings. The message on the shirt was directly aimed at a big interest group for the ACLU. Thus free speech, unless it says something we don't like. Sort of like a university speech code - freedom of exchange of ideas, except the ones we don't like.

And that is my problem with the ACLU - they take a lot of gutsy stands on some issues but are completely silent on others even when the underlying issues are the same. It just depends on what interest group is being gored.

When you join the ACLU (I was a member for a while before I rethought things) you will find yourself on the mailing list of every moderate to far out left liberal group there is. The ACLU can pretend that they are non-partisan all they want but who do they think they are kidding? And in CA the ACLU - through Ripston and Reinhardt - screwed everyone in all the western states with the first direct language stating as law what the likes of Treelogger suggest it should be.

Joe Register
04-21-2006, 10:55 PM
Dang Tree, I see you were busy while I was slowly typing away. Good job. I was going to mention that the Plaintiff in Miller was dead but it looks like you are well ahead of me.

maxicon
04-22-2006, 10:09 AM
Before you rumble on about free speech and the ACLU read the opinion that just was reported yesterday out of the 9th circuit from - who else - Reinhardt. You can not wear a tee shirt to school now that hurts someone elses feelings. The message on the shirt was directly aimed at a big interest group for the ACLU. Thus free speech, unless it says something we don't like. Sort of like a university speech code - freedom of exchange of ideas, except the ones we don't like.

Interestingly, students have very few rights in this country, particularly minor students. This sort of thing has been upheld again and again. Freedom of speech, freedom from random search and seizure, individual privacy, and such just aren't supported on campuses.

Minors in general have very few rights at all, and very little of the Bill of Rights applies to them.

I don't know if this particular case was minor students or college students - I seem to have missed the link to it - but if it's minor students, this is just the way things are in this country.



And that is my problem with the ACLU - they take a lot of gutsy stands on some issues but are completely silent on others even when the underlying issues are the same. It just depends on what interest group is being gored.

When you join the ACLU (I was a member for a while before I rethought things) you will find yourself on the mailing list of every moderate to far out left liberal group there is. The ACLU can pretend that they are non-partisan all they want but who do they think they are kidding? And in CA the ACLU - through Ripston and Reinhardt - screwed everyone in all the western states with the first direct language stating as law what the likes of Treelogger suggest it should be.

Yep, it's a problem. Unfortunately, there aren't many options.

For 2nd Amendment support, we have a few options. There's the NRA, JPFO, CRPA, and so on.

On the national level, the NRA's the only game in town. Do I agree with everything they do and their approaches? No. Do they support the rest of the Bill of Rights? No, but I support them anyway, because they're effective in their area.

It's the same with ACLU. Who else supports freedom of speech, freedom from illegal search and seizure, freedom of assembly? At the national level, no one. Do I agree with everything they do and their approaches? No. Do they support the 2nd Amendment? No, but like with the NRA, they're effective at what they do support.

Where was the NRA when the .50 cal ban was signed in California? Where are they on shall-issue in California, on overturning the AW ban, and so on? They're not here fighting for us. I still support them, because any help is better than none, but lots of gun owners foolishly (IMO) refuse to support the NRA because they don't fight every battle.

If the ACLU would support the 2nd they way they support our other rights, I'd send them money. Now, I send them the message "No 2nd amendment support? No ACLU support!" Are they listening? I doubt it, but I do it anyway, just like I send my liberal reps my gun rights opinions.

max

glen avon
04-22-2006, 1:28 PM
The First 10 Ammendments address specfically the rights of any CITIZEN. ...

says where? you are wrong on that. now, you may believe that's how it should be, but then, that would be your interpretation... ;)

glen avon
04-22-2006, 1:40 PM
Its interesting how they believe the 2nd is a "collective right" but none of the other Amendements are. All of the other Amendments applying to the individual do not expressly state the individual or people and ACLU treats as if that are carved in stone, but the 2nd actually states "the right of the people" and they see that as a collective right of the state. Amazing!

I'd love for someone to ask them how they came about this thinking and ask "if the 2nd Amendment is a collective right of the state then how come the 1st Amendement isn't also, allowing the states to regulate speech?"

the aclu does not believe the other 9 amendments apply necessarily to individuals. the 10th for instance, does not, and the aclu would never say that it does.

VeryCoolCat
04-22-2006, 1:47 PM
Just read them, the first 10 ammendments are not specificiall said that they are, but each address an individual's rights.

You cannot compare yelling the word FIRE in a public area. You technically CAN, but then it'll cause a disturbance people might get killed then your in deep.


I do not believe that the 2nd ammendment applies to militias as it was only "INTERPTRETED" as WITHIN A MILITIA.

You can say I'm interpreting it wrong, different, however I'm reading it just as it says.

I will state what I've said before. Whenever the words "THE PEOPLE" it always referred to US, the people.

"We the People of the United States,"

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"


If it were referring to the militia I believe they would have removed the comma which many places are quoting NOW rather than use the exact text.

blacklisted
04-22-2006, 1:48 PM
There are versions with and without the comma.