ACLU and Gun Rights

[Tomahawk]

imported post

CarryOpen wrote:

I'm still waiting to see how any of these things have to do with the ACLU stance on OC or RKBA.

Well, haven't you heard? The ACLU wants to kill your babies and they supply nukes to terrorists and they protect free speech because free speech leads to communism.

In fact, if you're a conservative, you know that except for the 2nd Amm., the whole rest of the BOR (the part the ACLU does support) is a communist/islamofacist plot, and that the only way to be free is to stop questioning all the Republican police state policies and just let cops do whatever they feel like.

Seriously, so what if the ACLU was started by extreme leftsists. As long as they are sticking up for some part of the BOR that's waaay more than most lawyers are good for.

If you want to complain about wackjob leftist groups, go pick on the SPLC. They make the ACLU look like a bunch of Republicans.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

...DT

 

[eye95]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

CarryOpen wrote:

I'm still waiting to see how any of these things have to do with the ACLU stance on OC or RKBA.

Well, haven't you heard? The ACLU wants to kill your babies and they supply nukes to terrorists and they protect free speech because free speech leads to communism.

In fact, if you're a conservative, you know that except for the 2nd Amm., the whole rest of the BOR (the part the ACLU does support) is a communist/islamofacist plot, and that the only way to be free is to stop questioning all the Republican police state policies and just let cops do whatever they feel like.

Seriously, so what if the ACLU was started by extreme leftsists. As long as they are sticking up for some part of the BOR that's waaay more than most lawyers are good for.

If you want to complain about wackjob leftist groups, go pick on the SPLC. They make the ACLU look like a bunch of Republicans.

Ah, Ye Olde Strawman. Garry Trudeau would be so proud.

 

[Hunterdave]

imported post

Sometimes I think I walked into a nest of libs(and I don't mean libertarians ),
with a few exceptions.
Guess it shows OC appeals to people with wide and varying views.
Being from the deep south it takes some getting use to.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Pace wrote:

Those who feel the ACLU is dangerous are most likely the most dangerous people. They have their opinion and they believe that we need to agree with them, and their viewpoint to the death.

I'm inclined to agree.

eye95 wrote:

And, I shall say this once (once again, actually; I said it earlier in this thread):  The ACLU, in defending the rights of some, have abridged the rights of others. 

How do you figure?

By the way, if what you state is true, than the actions of the ACLU cannot constitute "defending the rights of some", as rights, properly understood, may never come into conflict (by definition). Or, if the ACLU was, in fact,
"defending the rights of some", then it's impossible they were infringing upon or abrogating the rights of others merely by so doing.

 

[eye95]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Pace wrote:

Those who feel the ACLU is dangerous are most likely the most dangerous people. They have their opinion and they believe that we need to agree with them, and their viewpoint to the death.

I'm inclined to agree.

eye95 wrote:

And, I shall say this once (once again, actually; I said it earlier in this thread): The ACLU, in defending the rights of some, have abridged the rights of others.

How do you figure?

By the way, if what you state is true, than the actions of the ACLU cannot constitute "defending the rights of some", as rights, properly understood, may never come into conflict (by definition). Or, if the ACLU was, in fact,
"defending the rights of some", then it's impossible they were infringing upon or abrogating the rights of others merely by so doing.

Rights conflict all of the time. The Boy Scouts, a private organization, doesn't want openly practicing homosexuals as leaders. Folks from a wacko church want disrupt the funerals of fallen service members. A school allows all kinds of clubs to meet, but disallows religious clubs.

Rights often conflict and the ACLU comes down 90% of the time on the opposite side of the issue than I do. I loathe their concept of "protecting rights." And, apparently, the 2A isn't a right they choose to work to protect.

The ACLU is a thinly-veiled leftist organization. JMO. And you have yours.


On edit: Feel free to respond however you choose. Based on past experiences, I won't respond again.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

eye95 wrote:

And, I shall say this once (once again, actually; I said it earlier in this thread): The ACLU, in defending the rights of some, have abridged the rights of others.

How do you figure?

By the way, if what you state is true, than the actions of the ACLU cannot constitute "defending the rights of some", as rights, properly understood, may never come into conflict (by definition). Or, if the ACLU was, in fact,
"defending the rights of some", then it's impossible they were infringing upon or abrogating the rights of others merely by so doing.

Be quiet, marshaul, no questions!

Honestly, once upon a time I hated the ACLU, too. They are leftists. But they also tend to be consistent and they do stand up for most of the BOR.

I can live with that.

If anyone wants to join and turn them pro-gun, or at least get them to change their position on the 2A, best of luck to you.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Another strawman.

 

[crisisweasel]

imported post

Nothing warms my heart more than conservatives coming to grips with a fact that not everyone in the pro-RKBA falls into lockstep with the rest of their particular worldview.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

marrero jeff wrote:

The reason the ACLU hasnt handled a gun case (to my knowledge) is because the majority of gun owners are conservative or moderate and the ACLU is liberal for the most part. So when they have a gun case, most people go to the NRA for help.

.....and the NRA is about as likely to help you as the ACLU.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

The ACLU will not defend property rights.

The ACLU will not defend RKBA (except for Nevada chapter)

The ACLU will not defend states rights or argue for limiting the size or scope of government.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes they do good things, but then again so did Joseph Stalin.

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

The ACLU will not defend property rights.

The ACLU will not defend RKBA (except for Nevada chapter)

The ACLU will not defend states rights or argue for limiting the size or scope of government.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes they do good things, but then again so did Joseph Stalin.

Well, one out of three ain't bad. :quirky

http://www.wwl.com/pages/4728222.php?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Pace wrote:

Those who feel the ACLU is dangerous are most likely the most dangerous people. They have their opinion and they believe that we need to agree with them, and their viewpoint to the death.

I'm inclined to agree.

eye95 wrote:

And, I shall say this once (once again, actually; I said it earlier in this thread):  The ACLU, in defending the rights of some, have abridged the rights of others. 

How do you figure?

By the way, if what you state is true, than the actions of the ACLU cannot constitute "defending the rights of some", as rights, properly understood, may never come into conflict (by definition). Or, if the ACLU was, in fact,
"defending the rights of some", then it's impossible they were infringing upon or abrogating the rights of others merely by so doing.

Rights conflict all of the time.  The Boy Scouts, a private organization, doesn't want openly practicing homosexuals as leaders.  Folks from a wacko church want disrupt the funerals of fallen service members.  A school allows all kinds of clubs to meet, but disallows religious clubs.

Rights often conflict and the ACLU comes down 90% of the time on the opposite side of the issue than I do.  I loathe their concept of "protecting rights."  And, apparently, the 2A isn't a right they choose to work to protect.

The ACLU is a thinly-veiled leftist organization.  JMO.  And you have yours.


On edit:  Feel free to respond however you choose.  Based on past experiences, I won't respond again.

Why do you respond to me in the first place, then?

None of your examples qualify as rights coming into conflict (which is, as I said, impossible).

They are, every one, examples of the extent of one group's rights being limited by the sphere of others' rights. They are each examples of "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose".

Sometimes, government doesn't side with right, and instead allows the abrogation of it (like forcing property owners to allow protected classes). But, this cannot be protecting the rights of those protected classes, as they have never had, and never will have, a right to be on private property without the consent of the proprietor. It is merely abrogating the rights of property holders in order to create a privilege, one which exists in opposition to right.

 

[flagellum]

imported post

crisisweasel wrote:

Nothing warms my heart more than conservatives coming to grips with a fact that not everyone in the pro-RKBA falls into lockstep with the rest of their particular worldview.

You wrote out that whole tremendously awesome rant, and they you delete it? why?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

flagellum wrote:

crisisweasel wrote:

Nothing warms my heart more than conservatives coming to grips with a fact that not everyone in the pro-RKBA falls into lockstep with the rest of their particular worldview.

You wrote out that whole tremendously awesome rant, and they you delete it?  why?

I want to read it.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

flagellum wrote:

crisisweasel wrote:

Nothing warms my heart more than conservatives coming to grips with a fact that not everyone in the pro-RKBA falls into lockstep with the rest of their particular worldview.

You wrote out that whole tremendously awesome rant, and they you delete it? why?

I want to read it.

Yeah, me too...

 

[Morh]

imported post

flagellum wrote:

After some more research, I found that the ACLU has on many occasions fought to defend gun owners (local chapters).

Most notably, they have even fought to defend Open Carry specifically.

http://www.opposingviews.com/p/aclu-joins-fight-to-stop-illegal-searches-of-open-carriers

the point is the ACLU does not consider the 2A to be a "civil liberty", they took the case because they where defending the 4Abecause the case involved illegal searches.

ACLU = Americans for Certain Liberties Union

 

[BJA]

imported post

Okay I gotta chime in! HAPPY MOTHERS DAY ha ha ha ha lol



carry on!