PDA

View Full Version : ACLU Newspaper Ad


Outlaw Josey Wales
08-28-2007, 11:09 AM
Never really paid any attention to the ACLU. That is until today. On page A5 of the San Francisco Chronicle they ran a full page ad featuring two sheep in front of the capitol in Washington. Their ears are tagged, one Pelosi the other Reid. There's a paragraph or two under the photo but it is the last two sentences that really caught my attention. It said, "We don't need sheep guarding the Bill of Rights. We need lions."

JawBone
08-28-2007, 11:17 AM
I love the sentiment - but wish the ACLU would realize that the Second Amendment is contained within the "Bill of Rights."

MrTuffPaws
08-28-2007, 2:44 PM
I love the sentiment - but wish the ACLU would realize that the Second Amendment is contained within the "Bill of Rights."

Well, two recent cases show that at least some state level ACLU orgs are moving in a pro 2nd direction. You can't expect them to turn over an orchard over night.

Either way, I'll wait and see. It is good to see some progress from them. They just need to follow through.

JawBone
08-28-2007, 2:52 PM
It will be interesting to see if/when Parker/Heller affirms an individual right, they choose but to put resources into defending/bringing 2A cases.

Until then, their National Org official position (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html) remains collective rights and they will not touch 2A cases.

DedEye
08-28-2007, 6:01 PM
It will be interesting to see if/when Parker/Heller affirms an individual right, they choose but to put resources into defending/bringing 2A cases.

Until then, their National Org official position (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html) remains collective rights and they will not touch 2A cases.

Agreed. The fact that they consider 2A a collective right is the only thing I dislike/disagree with the ACLU about.

Librarian
08-28-2007, 7:27 PM
Agreed. The fact that they consider 2A a collective right is the only thing I dislike/disagree with the ACLU about.But that's enough.

DedEye
08-28-2007, 10:39 PM
But that's enough.

Enough for what? To crap all over the good things they manage to do? One could make an argument for leaving the 2nd Amendment to the NRA, and the rest of the Bill of Rights to the ACLU (I wouldn't make that argument though, I want the ACLU to work for the 2nd Amendment as well).

jdberger
08-28-2007, 11:02 PM
Enough for what? To crap all over the good things they manage to do? One could make an argument for leaving the 2nd Amendment to the NRA, and the rest of the Bill of Rights to the ACLU (I wouldn't make that argument though, I want the ACLU to work for the 2nd Amendment as well).

Actually, yes. The BOR comes as a package. There is no line item veto.

Unfortunately, it seems as if the ACLU has been hijacked by agitators who are just out to get their names in the papers. Suing schools about dress codes? Please.

You don't see them rush to defend all forms of speech, these days. Only the lefty and the radical.

It's unfortunate.

I'm still a member, but my idea is to change it from the inside. Get them to recognize that treating 2A like a stepchild has consequences far larger than just the gun debate.

ghettoshecky
08-28-2007, 11:13 PM
O so we're deciding to show give credit to the ACLU of protecting 2nd Amendments when they make fun of Reid? I don't like the man, but he's been very consistent in voting in favor of gun rights. This only furthers my negative view on the ACLU as a puppet of the lefty looneys.

JawBone
08-29-2007, 8:04 AM
You don't see them rush to defend all forms of speech, these days. Only the lefty and the radical.

... This only furthers my negative view on the ACLU as a puppet of the lefty looneys.

Yeah, their former clients Ollie North (5th Amendment Case) and The Second Amendment Foundation(!) (on a 1st Amendment Case) are lefty radical loonies. :rolleyes:

CalNRA
08-29-2007, 8:19 AM
Enough for what? To crap all over the good things they manage to do? One could make an argument for leaving the 2nd Amendment to the NRA, and the rest of the Bill of Rights to the ACLU (I wouldn't make that argument though, I want the ACLU to work for the 2nd Amendment as well).

according to them we are allowed to advocating(but not actually doing) the extermination of Jews based on the 1st, but the Jewish Americans are not entitled to keep a gun even with the Bill of Rights in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_ Skokie

PS I understand the concept of the freedom of assembly. Just pointing the irony in their logic.

DedEye
08-29-2007, 10:21 AM
according to them we are allowed to advocating(but not actually doing) the extermination of Jews based on the 1st, but the Jewish Americans are not entitled to keep a gun even with the Bill of Rights in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_ Skokie

PS I understand the concept of the freedom of assembly. Just pointing the irony in their logic.

You want to talk irony? The ACLU lawyer representing the Nazis in Skokie was Jewish...

ETA: The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39182) said it best ;).

MudCamper
08-29-2007, 10:51 AM
Why does the ACLU have to defend the 2nd? The NRA only defends the 2nd. The ACLU basically only defends the 1st, 4th, and 5th, and not much else. Both organizations serve their respective purpose.

As for the Nazi/Nambla/etc crap. It should be painfully clear to any advocate of the 1st why they defend those horrible groups. But just in case it's not:

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

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.

If only the NRA were so bold. They'd be defending our rights to own silencers and machine guns...

JawBone
08-29-2007, 11:00 AM
Why does the ACLU have to defend the 2nd?

Well, I don't think anyone is saying they "have" to.

But for purposes of intellectual integrity, if the ACLU's stated mission indeed is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States," then I think most of us here feel that the Second Amendment is included in that description.

MudCamper
08-29-2007, 11:11 AM
Well, I don't think anyone is saying they "have" to.

OK, but read back and you will see at least 2 posters that think they should at the very least.

I think most of us here feel that the Second Amendment is included in that description.

Agreed. But I don't expect the ACLU to focus on it or even defend it at all. It's plate is VERY full already. We have the NRA for the 2nd. I give money to both of these organizations. Yeah, I don't like who the ACLU defends. I despise affimative action (the ACLU supports it). But I'm not blind to the fact that this organization does necessary work. Who else is fighting the USAPATRIOT Act, the Military Comissions Act, the DEA, etc. etc.

JohnJW
08-29-2007, 1:31 PM
I support both the ACLU and the NRA. But I do see a problem with ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why only the 2nd Amendment is singled out as our "collective" rights. Why don't they apply this "collective" right concept to the 1st and only give free speech to the newspapers. You can't speak out individually, but you can ask the newspaper to publish your speech. . . . but what happens when they refuse to publish. . .

I view the ACLU as the barking dog by the porch and NRA as the loaded gun in the closet. Hopefully the bark will scare away intruder but if necessary I'm prepared to use my gun. However, I rather not because the aftermath will be messy and unimaginable. I don't know if I want to live in the same house/neighborhood again once I'm forced to use my gun.

In a democratic society ACLU is the only viable option we have against King George Jr. unless we want to go through the whole tea party thing again. . . that's where NRA comes in. . but. . . .

ghettoshecky
08-29-2007, 6:16 PM
Yeah, their former clients Ollie North (5th Amendment Case) and The Second Amendment Foundation(!) (on a 1st Amendment Case) are lefty radical loonies. :rolleyes:

Yeah u can add on supporting Rush's drug abuse and other such "non-lefty radical loony" cases, but don't tell me they didn't have a left leaning agenda behind it (do I need to state the obvious gains for the left with these cases?). Although to be fair, their efforts to strengthen the meaning of the 4th Amend. is very commendable. Still it doesn't change the fact that they don't do much for the second amendment as was the main purpose of my original post.

JawBone
08-29-2007, 6:20 PM
...but don't tell me they didn't have a left leaning agenda behind it (do I need to state the obvious gains for the left with these cases?).

Please enlighten me.

If by "left leaning agenda" you mean "defending civil liberties" then I agree with you, but I consider that an "American" agenda.