Defensive Carry banner

ACLU blasted on own blog...

3K views 36 replies 26 participants last post by  falcon1 
#1 ·
From World Net Daily
Hundreds of comments have been posted in just the first few days of July, almost uniformly condemning the ACLU's explanation of its position on gun rights, which is that individuals don't have them.

"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller," the page started. "While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."
ACLU Blog in case you want to add your twe cents worth.:evil:
 
#17 ·
It just goes to show you-just-cant-win-liberal
One of the most brilliant constitutional law scholars (makes Scalia look like an illiterate inbred), author of the most cited treatise on constitutional law and a dyed in the wool liberal born and raised in San Francisco, switched his long held views on the Second Amendment. Perhaps more accurately, he finally got around to researching the history of the Second Amendment and, to the dismay of many liberals, concluded it does indeed protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Gun Nuts Like Lawrence Tribe
Law.com - Laurence Tribe's Big Surprise
 
#3 ·
Collectively, we all have a right to defend ourselves. Specifically via arms.

The ACLU's position is anti-rights, anti-justice, anti-reason. Their position deserves to be blasted, particularly since it goes against their mission.

I fully appreciate the fears they have over criminal misuse of arms. What I cannot tolerate is those fears that seek to deny me my right to defend my life.
 
#5 ·
I was going to add a comment to their blog, but after reading many of the comments, there is not much left to say. Many of their own members and former members are saying they're dropping them and joining the NRA instead. We'll see, and welcome. If it starts to hit them (the ACLU) in their bank account, they may see reason.... :rolleyes:
 
#7 ·
The blog doesn't want additions, leastwise not by me:
Warning: chk_crypt(php/crypt/) [function.chk-crypt]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/project_websites/blogtest.aclu.org/wp-content/plugins/mycaptcha/MyCaptcha.php on line 60

Warning: chk_crypt() [function.include]: Failed opening 'php/crypt/' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear') in /home/project_websites/blogtest.aclu.org/wp-content/plugins/mycaptcha/MyCaptcha.php on line 60

Error: Wrong anti-spam word.
 
#8 ·
I think they may be out of space, or just beyond their allowable bandwidth. It apparently won'taccept any further comments.

Here's what I attempted to post:

I'm baffled by the ACLU's decision to oppose CIVIL LIBERTIES. To continue a claim that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a collective right, rather than an individual right, is not only aberrant, it is abhorrent.

I have supported the ACLU in the past, both monetarily and otherwise, but my disappointment in the organization is such that I will withhold support until such time as the organization supports all of our fundamental freedoms, including the right to keep and bear arms as individuals.

Who within the ACLU is responsible for this inexplicable position?
 
#12 ·
I had some time to kill at work today, so I started reading the blog entries. I read over 210 before I got distracted.

These are the results of what I read:

3 posters agreed with the ACLU's reading of the 2A not being an individual right.

1 poster agreed the ACLU was wrong, but defended their refusal to change their position.

2 posters were unclear if they supported the ACLU or were being sarcastic.

200+ posters were extremely critical of the ACLU's position, and harshly so. Many claimed they were finished supporting the ACLU financially. Several claimed they would now support the NRA. I had no idea so many who supported the ACLU cared so much about the 2A. I haven't read of such a lopsided event since I read of the 1940 NFL championship game where the Chicago Bears defeated the Washington Redskins 73-0.

It was great reading about previous ACLU supporters now taking the view that I have held for years, that the ACLU is backed by some with a political agenda rather than an interest in protecting the Constitution and ALL the Bill of Rights, not just the ones they choose. I would quote some of my favorite responses, but they aren't appropriate for this forum.

Good times, good times. :bier:
 
#14 ·
Inspector Gadget Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Full Disclosure, I am a card carrying member of the NRA, Retired Military, Licensed Concealed Weapon Carrying, Conservative. I have long since been disgusted by the ACLU, due to their Extremist Left Stances. But this thread has gone a long way toward restoring my faith that there are liberals that do believe in the Bill Of Rights. To apparently 99.9% of the posters on this thread, thank you for your individual support of our Individual Right to protect ourselves.

As far as the ACLU itself goes ................. well you can probably fill that blank in

I posted this last night, still awaiting moderation ..... ? and they defend free speech ?
 
#15 ·
I posted the following this AM:

I am disappointed and dismayed that the organization claiming to support and defend all of the civil liberties that are protected by our constitution would choose to cherry-pick.

One would assume that the leadership of the ACLU understands that compromise on civil liberties is a compromise on liberty itself. Statements regarding the "collective" basis of the second amendment would indicate that assumption to be incorrect and further indicate the ACLU leadership has not bothered to read the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers that explain - in the framer's own words - the rationale behind and the basis for the Bill of Rights (hint - it's not about "collective rights")

I am a current ACLU member and have supported the organization based on a desire to defend liberty. It seems the ACLU is less interested in this than I am. Perhaps my donations are better spent elsewhere.

Tim
ACLU Member and NRA life member
 
#18 ·
Responde 933:


Let’s look at a practical implication of Heller.

Right now, a number of states discriminate against visiting residents of other states on issues of self defense.

Two examples: Colorado mutually recognizes gun carry permits from certain states, including Utah, and not others such as Washington state. Utah will issue a Utah carry permit to out-of-state residents as long as they complete a Utah-approved background check and training.

If a WA resident obtains a Utah permit, you would think that person could be legally armed in Colorado. You’d be wrong: CO attempts to punish residents of states without permit reciprocity even when they hold permits (such as UT) recognized in CO.

Another example: California bans all open-carry of loaded weapons, and issues concealed carry permits only to residents of it’s own state, while not recognizing any other permit. In this fashion, only a California resident may be armed for self defense in California, period.

Both these examples are unconstitutional under current case law, if a basic civil right is being infringed against a non-resident of the state doing the infringing. See also Ward v. Maryland (sometimes known as Ward v. State) 79 US 418 (1870), Slaughter-house Cases 83 US 36 (1873) and Saenz v. Roe 526 US 489 (1999).

The instant the Heller decision came down, it became possible to sue over this cross-state discrimination in Federal court because a personal right to self defense was recognized as a Federally protected civil right.

Note that this doesn’t even get into the issue of whether or not a state can discriminate against it’s own citizens. Due to some truly hideous (not to mention racist) case law such as US v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875) the Bill Of Rights doesn’t fully apply to the states yet. The Heller court warned in at least two spots that the Cruikshank precedent cannot be relied on, but since state-level violations of a civil right weren’t at play in Heller, that court didn’t finally put a stake through Cruikshank’s dark heart.

The question for the ACLU is: do you support discrimination of any sort by a state against visiting residents of another state?

If not, have you really pondered the practical implications of Heller?

Jim March
 
#19 ·
My contribution

Assuming it does not get moderated out, I posted the following to the blog:

From the “about us” page on the ACLU website:

“The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.”

So, if the Second Amendment is a limit on the majority (collective) rights, does that not make it an INDIVIDUAL right? Please get your story straight!
 
#20 ·
Now there you go again, all of you. You should be ashamed, you know they can't understand common sense.

You need to revise your postings to use only emotion and conjecture, maybe throw in a derogatory remark to cap it off, when you rpoint can't be made by the emotion only.




Dang, I'm surprised I could even get through typing that without throwing up! :rofl:
 
#24 ·
Nice, you beat me to it.

BTW, my addition:

The fundamental law of nature: self-preservation. Remember, the Bill of Rights does not grant liberty; it merely acknowledges some liberties by listing the more prominent, salient ‘rights’. The Bill of Rights was never intended to be inclusive. Moreover, inconspicuous rights are no less important, and if the government abided the Constitution they would be no less protected than the rights actually outlined in the Bill of Rights. If the Federal government isn’t specifically granted a power, then the power doesn’t exist. Note: government wields authority; individuals wield rights. The notion of “collective rights” is most certainly absurd, disingenuous, and illogical. The fallacious attempt by the ACLU to assert their interpretation of the Second Amendment, even after DC v. Heller, is evidence of agenda void of logic. The sole agenda of the ACLU ought to be for the protection of liberties. If their decision is to only protect the liberties acknowledged by their own equivocal interpretation, then I conclude that they’ve become what they hate.
 
#25 ·
I am still reading the posts, but so far the best is

Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . .
The ACLU intelligentsia must be cringing. They are being whipped with their own statements from their own website on how they are for all individual rights. It has to hurt when they beat you with our own plank.
 
#26 ·
The Nevada ACLU has declared its support for an individual’s right to bear arms . . .
Another brick in the wall. I like a lot about what the ACLU has done in the past. If they get dragged, kicking and screaming, into supporting individual gun rights, they'll get my monetary support again. As I wrote on their blog, their position on this particular issue is baffling.

Let them show the same fervor for the the Second Amendment that they show for the First.
 
#27 ·
Evidently, their blog is currently experiencing problems. I've been following the fun for several days on their blog at http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/#comment-1619.

Now, the database won't load and cannot connect to any of their blogs. Most of their blog comment sites get about six comments; when last I saw, the Heller blog had approximately 951, and >99% of them were pro-Heller and blasting the hypocrisy of the ACLU.

Maybe they didn't like what they were hearing, and decided that the First Amendment wasn't so important, either. :image035:

(Yes, I know, the First Amendment does not constrain the ACLU. :rolleyes: )
 
#28 ·
I think it got stuck at 999 comments. According to one poster:
974 of 979 comments so far letting the national ACLU know that we don’t agree with them and their selective support of our civil rights.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top