ACLU losing members over their refusal to accept USSC's DC v. Heller decision

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
I guess if you can't read the normal English that the 2nd amendment is written in, you probably can't read the even-more-normal English the Supreme Court's Heller decision is written in, either. I can't imagine any other reason for the ACLU to keep sticking to their wrong ideas on what the 2nd means.

Sounds like some of their members CAN read, though... and as a result the ACLU's obtuseness is starting to cost them members.

---------------------------------------

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68695

ACLU blasted on own blog over 2nd Amendment stand

Posted: July 03, 2008
11:00 pm Eastern

The American Civil Liberties is getting blasted on its own blog site for holding onto the belief that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals.

"Sorry ACLU you lost me," wrote SuperNaut. "I just took the money I had slated to re-up my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership."

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."

(Story continues below)

The fine print said, "We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability."

Then it specifically asked that comments endorsing or opposing specific political candidates not be posted.

It seems as if posters could hardly wait to punch the "submit" button.

"So pretty much, your policy went from 'we agree with the decision in US v Miller that gun ownership is not a constitutional right' to 'we disagree with DC V Heller and still believe that gun ownership is not a constitutional right,' meaning that despite whatever ruling is laid down, the ACLU will be against the individual right of private gun ownership," said DJ Rick in launching the long list of several hundred comments.

"I was really hoping that the ACLU would at least reconsider its stance, now invalidated by the SCOTUS, and come around to the popularly accepted and now legally accepted view than an amendment in the bill of rights (whether it be the Firs (sic), Second, Third or whichever) actually protects an individual's right," he said.

"Q. How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? A. 1, 3, 4, 5…," he wrote.

"The ACLU's position was wrong before Heller; to maintain it now is absurd. Not one of the justices in Heller endorsed the 'collective rights' viewpoint. If the ACLU believes that it is the best public policy that individuals should not own guns, it should campaign for the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution," wrote Posey.

"Does that mean that I can interpret the constitution as not providing for a right to privacy? … Does the ACLU only defend civil liberties it agrees with?" wrote NotSurprised.
 
The ACLU, like many other organizations, started out with a noble idea and ended up being a bastion of extremism.

If the SCOTUS decision costs them members, then the members are welcome in the NRA.
 
*yawn*

Gun nuts don't sleep. They post the most dispicable things thinkable on blogs all the time. It's a good time their only a small part of the electorate, or else they'd destroy the nation.
 
Watermark said:
*yawn*

Gun nuts don't sleep. They post the most dispicable things thinkable on blogs all the time. It's a good time their only a small part of the electorate, or else they'd destroy the nation.
Click to expand...
Right. Because saying that they lost their membership and that they used it for their membership in the NRA is "despicable".

It's always easy to stereotype and put people in boxes.

While some go overboard and make unreasonable and despicable comments, "gun nuts" do not all stay up at night making those comments. We've certainly found many D nuts making comments that are of the same caliber. The difference? We don't assume you all will.
 
This really shakes my faith in the ACLU.

To cling to that idiocy pre-Heller was just stupid, but this is just retarded.

"The ACLU interprets the 2nd to mean..." Wtf? The ACLU doesn't interpret the Constitution, the SCOTUS does.
 
Watermark said:
They both interpret the constitution.
Click to expand...
And so do we, however the final word is the SCOTUS. Even if a later court overturns this ruling, until then this is what the constitution means and it will be applied that way.

They are now becoming a group like the pro-lifers that think changing the face of the SCOTUS is the means to get what they want...
 
Damocles said:
And so do we, however the final word is the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

I agree with their recent decision to uphold the 2nd Amendment. However, Congress could have rightly done so themselves by passing a law to enforce it. There is nothing in the Constitution which designates the SCOTUS as the final arbiter in Constitutional cases. Jefferson viewed that is tyranny, and I am inclined to agree.
 
Damocles said:
And so do we, however the final word is the SCOTUS. Even if a later court overturns this ruling, until then this is what the constitution means and it will be applied that way.

They are now becoming a group like the pro-lifers that think changing the face of the SCOTUS is the means to get what they want...
Click to expand...

He was implying that they didn't interpret the constitution. They do, and they can do it however they want to. They can even disagree with the supreme court. Imagine that. The supreme court may have the final say but that's irrelevant to what Epicurus was criticizing them for.
 
Thornicus said:
Where does it say that in the Constitution?

I agree with their recent decision to uphold the 2nd Amendment. However, Congress could have rightly done so themselves by passing a law to enforce it. There is nothing in the Constitution which designates the SCOTUS as the final arbiter in Constitutional cases. Jefferson viewed that is tyranny, and I am inclined to agree.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.
 
The congress would be such a better interpreter of the constitution than people who've devoted their lives to the study of it.

/sarcasm off
 
All the liberals who used to crow that "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is!" have suddenly gotten awfully quiet.
 
Watermark said:
The congress would be such a better interpreter of the constitution than people who've devoted their lives to the study of it.

/sarcasm off
Click to expand...

How come the Supreme Court can keep the Congress in check, but not the other way around? It would seem the public schools neglected to teach you about the three-point check system.

Show me in the Constitution where it designates SCOTUS as final arbiter.

people who've devoted their lives to the study of it.
Click to expand...

That's horseshit and you know it.

Those same people determined Blacks are only 1/2 human. But according to your reasoning, we'd just all have to accept such a ruling, because the Almighty Supreme Council says so.
 
Last edited:
I was a board member of the local ACLU for two years. In that time I espoused the belief that the second amendment was an individual right and that we were no less hypocritical than the right who count to 10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10. The second and the ninth amendment both contain the words "the people" in them. No one can explain to me the difference between "the people" in both amendments. There are now and always have been 10 amendments to the bill of rights. The left and right extremes have chosen to ignore one of the two though not the same one. The Bill of rights was intended to protect the rights of individual citizens and NOT groups. We do not retain free speech rights as group. We do not have protections against search seizure as a group. As a matter of fact the ONLY amendment that anyone has EVER tried to interpret as being a collective right is the Second. WHY would the framers write EVERY SINGLE OTHER amendement so as to pertain to the individual but the one that leftwingers hate is the ONLY one that pertains to a group?
 
Was the ACLU really founded on solid principles to begin with?

I am highly skeptical, especially in light of the evidence that Baldwin was a communist.
 
American communists were idealists. They sought a nation where everyone was free. Free from hunger and want and need. They were also strong supporters of freedom of speech and freedom of press. American communists at the beginning were not the same as their totalitarian Soviet sponsors, and don't anyone mistake the fact that the USSR funneled cash to the American Communist Party. It was NEVER the Communists in THIS country that attempted to make freedom of associations a crime. It was the rightwing. Unfortunate that you cannot see that much of the the right in this country was as wrong about the direction this country should go as were the communists. Both sides wanted us all to live in gilded cages.
 
Socrtease said:
American communists were idealists. They sought a nation where everyone was free. Free from hunger and want and need. They were also strong supporters of freedom of speech and freedom of press. American communists at the beginning were not the same as their totalitarian Soviet sponsors, and don't anyone mistake the fact that the USSR funneled cash to the American Communist Party. It was NEVER the Communists in THIS country that attempted to make freedom of associations a crime. It was the rightwing. Unfortunate that you cannot see that much of the the right in this country was as wrong about the direction this country should go as were the communists. Both sides wanted us all to live in gilded cages.
Click to expand...

Nice thought, but it doesn't mesh with history.

Baldwin visited the USSR twice, and offered nothing but praise for the Stalinist regime in his book entitled, "Liberty Under the Soviets." Clearly, the man was delusional.

That is no different from the various Marxist-Leninist parties in our country, which claim to be for "freedom," yet support the Cuban and North Korean governments. My point? Liberty is not their goal; it is merely the vehicle they'll use to come to power.
 
Last edited:
Thornicus said:
How come the Supreme Court can keep the Congress in check, but not the other way around? It would seem the public schools neglected to teach you about the three-point check system.

Show me in the Constitution where it designates SCOTUS as final arbiter.



That's horseshit and you know it.

Those same people determined Blacks are only 1/2 human. But according to your reasoning, we'd just all have to accept such a ruling, because the Almighty Supreme Council says so.
Click to expand...

LOL.


Dredd Scott was judicial restraint. The supreme court cannot order the government to do anything, it can only order it not to do something.
 
Socrtease said:
I was a board member of the local ACLU for two years. In that time I espoused the belief that the second amendment was an individual right and that we were no less hypocritical than the right who count to 10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10. The second and the ninth amendment both contain the words "the people" in them. No one can explain to me the difference between "the people" in both amendments. There are now and always have been 10 amendments to the bill of rights. The left and right extremes have chosen to ignore one of the two though not the same one. The Bill of rights was intended to protect the rights of individual citizens and NOT groups. We do not retain free speech rights as group. We do not have protections against search seizure as a group. As a matter of fact the ONLY amendment that anyone has EVER tried to interpret as being a collective right is the Second. WHY would the framers write EVERY SINGLE OTHER amendement so as to pertain to the individual but the one that leftwingers hate is the ONLY one that pertains to a group?
Click to expand...

Well if you want all the ammendments in your interpretation, then pay the ACLU, who will defend 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 , and pay the NRA, who defend no.2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top