ACLU defending "gun rights"

[ghostinthewood]

I bet its because most gun owners that would stand up to the government, wouldn't think to go to the ACLU. I mean read this thread. Sometimes it seems more like making jabs at the ACLU than whats actually happening.

 

[thompal]

I bet its because most gun owners that would stand up to the government, wouldn't think to go to the ACLU. I mean read this thread. Sometimes it seems more like making jabs at the ACLU than whats actually happening.

Some people dislike the ACLU's 1st Amendment stance SOOOO much that they will oppose the ACLU even when they are doing something good.

Do these same supposedly "pro gun" people oppose the ACLU when they file 4th Amendment cases? Why the rush to oppose a pro 2nd Amendment stance by the ACLU?

When people staunchly oppose the ACLU's 1st Amendment actions, we have to remember that the 1st Amendment's 'free speech' aspects pertain primarily to politically unpopular (or unapproved) speech. Why? Because speech that is popular isn't typically persecuted. Is the government going to arrest someone who supports the government 100%?

Looked at another way, if there's a person who you really dislike because of his political, racial, sexual, or religious ideals, would people here deny his right to own and carry firearms? If the ACLU were to defend his right to his political, racial, sexual, or religious views, should they not also defend his right to own and carry a firearm?

I generally dislike the ACLU's stance on a lot of things, but they do sometimes take on cases in which I think they are doing a Good Thing. I have also heard them make pro-2nd Amendment statements on more than one occasion. Why would I oppose them when they are doing something I agree with, merely because I disagree with other things they do?

Perhaps if they figure out that they could potentially gain a percentage of NRA members if they would consistently look at the 2nd Amendment in the strictest reading, they may take on more cases. Who knows?

 

[maxmayhem]

Weill....

I did not say I was opposing them but that I would not be joining them on this one. It goes back to a verse in Proverbs, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" I wont be joining the ACLU because my time can be spent joining a better cause and a better organization.

Some people dislike the ACLU's 1st Amendment stance SOOOO much that they will oppose the ACLU even when they are doing something good.

Do these same supposedly "pro gun" people oppose the ACLU when they file 4th Amendment cases? Why the rush to oppose a pro 2nd Amendment stance by the ACLU?

When people staunchly oppose the ACLU's 1st Amendment actions, we have to remember that the 1st Amendment's 'free speech' aspects pertain primarily to politically unpopular (or unapproved) speech. Why? Because speech that is popular isn't typically persecuted. Is the government going to arrest someone who supports the government 100%?

Looked at another way, if there's a person who you really dislike because of his political, racial, sexual, or religious ideals, would people here deny his right to own and carry firearms? If the ACLU were to defend his right to his political, racial, sexual, or religious views, should they not also defend his right to own and carry a firearm?

I generally dislike the ACLU's stance on a lot of things, but they do sometimes take on cases in which I think they are doing a Good Thing. I have also heard them make pro-2nd Amendment statements on more than one occasion. Why would I oppose them when they are doing something I agree with, merely because I disagree with other things they do?

Perhaps if they figure out that they could potentially gain a percentage of NRA members if they would consistently look at the 2nd Amendment in the strictest reading, they may take on more cases. Who knows?

 

[maxmayhem]

Yeah, This!

I don't trust the ACLU and I wont be joining them. I have read so many causes that they are for and they always seem to have an agenda that I do not want to be part of.

In my opinion, the ACLU is pulling a pretty slick manuever, and setting a little trap.

The left, of which the ACLU is certainly a part, believes - and certainly tries to portray - that the right is anti-immigrant.

By supporting the right of legal resident non-citizens to carry concealed, they hope to expose the right as anti-immigrant.

Legal resident aliens are people we let live and work here. With the exception of a few rights and priveleges granted only to citizens, like voting, they should have the same rights as anyone else living here.

You are born with the right to self-defense. We shouldn't arbitrarily take it away.

BTW, legal resident aliens as a group are less likely to commit a crime than the average U.S. citizen.

 

[Bushido Devil Dog]

Why would any gun owner not support expanding gun rights?

• Every human being has a right to self-defense.
• Immigrants are often living in dangerous areas and need protection.
• Gun Control leaves law-abiding people defenseless.
• Gun Control laws are ignored by violent Badguys.
• Selective gun ownership means we get licensing and restricted carry.
• Selective gun ownership means we get licensing of sellers and tight rules on FFLs.
• Selective gun ownership means we get restrictions on private sales.
• Selective gun ownership means we get ATF agents breathing down our neck.
• Selective gun ownership means we get reporting/monitoring of gun purchases.
• The government has no constitutional power to restrict gun ownership.
• Gun Control provides a false sense of security for sheep who believe in it.
• Incremental Gun Control is the objective of government.
• Laws like this give police their flaky excuse to check our weapons and our IDs while we mind our own business.
• Bans on arbitrary things for arbitrary people are what Nanny Statism is all about.
• Lose your ignorant delusion that every foreigner is in a drug cartel.
• The first gun control in America was on non-citizens (slaves).

This.

Criminals and tyrants almost never check passports. The right of the innocent to defend their life is a right of human beings, one that should not end when one crosses an imaginary line written on a map.

 

[revance]

Whatever happened to self defense being a GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

Don't all of you usually say things like "GOD gave me the right, the Constitution merely confirms and protects it"????

If they are here LEGALLY (AKA: law abiding) I think it is wrong to not support this man just because the ACLU is involved and you disagree with their other political views. I also strongly disagree that the GOA is letting their other political views interfere with their defense of the 2nd Amendment. This really makes me question the GOA.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Of note, ACLU-Nevada has openly stated on their website that they are pro-2A:

ACLU of Nevada Supports Individual’s Right to Bear Arms | ACLU of Nevada

Other state's ACLU chapters may do likewise.

Personally, I support the right of every person: man, woman, child, tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, begger man, thief, doctor, lawyer, or Indian chief to carry a firearm. The child's right to do so is best controlled by his/her parent, not a law, and the right of the thief to do so is controlled by the right of his intended victim (or an interested and armed bystander) to put a round between his eyes rather than submit. The law need not address this matter. That it currently does so is a relic of a bygone time when people thought they should blame an object for the (mis)behavior of a person.

Punish the crimes. The tools used to commit them are irrelevant.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[machete]

Whatever happened to self defense being a GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

Don't all of you usually say things like "GOD gave me the right, the Constitution merely confirms and protects it"????

theyre talking about the american god,,,these people dont think that its the same god that people in greece pray to...

im serious,,,very little global awareness and appreciation from these people

 

[Bill of Rights]

Whatever happened to self defense being a GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

Don't all of you usually say things like "GOD gave me the right, the Constitution merely confirms and protects it"????

If they are here LEGALLY (AKA: law abiding) I think it is wrong to not support this man just because the ACLU is involved and you disagree with their other political views. I also strongly disagree that the GOA is letting their other political views interfere with their defense of the 2nd Amendment. This really makes me question the GOA.

Excellent point. Many of us are heterosexual and do not have any desire nor intent to perform sexual acts with people of the same gender, yet to not embrace the existence and intentions of such groups as the Pink Pistols or for that matter, JPFO, would be ignorant and, quite frankly, stupid on our part.

For those who don't know, Pink Pistols is an organization devoted to preventing homosexuals from being victims of criminals.

The only similarity I know of between them and JPFO is that both represent either explicitly or implicitly in their names, groups of people who have traditionally stood against individual ownership of firearms, while the organizations themselves are very pro-2A. Mainstream Judaism seems to be primarily liberal (and anti-2A) in its politics, though "why" has always eluded me.

Rather than judge the group, let's judge what they're doing here and now and decide, case by case, how we wish to consider them. To do otherwise, for example, to say that because one is Christian, s/he should support all causes by any group that calls itself Christian, would have many people lining up with the idiots from Westboro, in Kansas.

I support the actions of the ACLU in their attempt to put some form of check on the rampant growth of our country's government. Not too many other groups are attempting to do that with any success.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[revance]

Whatever happened to the GOA being the group that never makes concessions or compromises with the 2nd Amendment???

Now they are saying things like:
"the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens."

What???

Sure, as long as we let citizens carry, then all is good.

... well as long as they let white people carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let Christians carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let men carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let hunters carry, then all is good.
... well as long as the let people with a "special need" to carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let police carry, then all is good.

When does it stop?

 

[mrjarrell]

Whatever happened to the GOA being the group that never makes concessions or compromises with the 2nd Amendment???

Now they are saying things like:
"the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens."

What???

Sure, as long as we let citizens carry, then all is good.

... well as long as they let white people carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let Christians carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let men carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let hunters carry, then all is good.
... well as long as the let people with a "special need" to carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let police carry, then all is good.

When does it stop?

From a "states rights" (10A) position, Pratt is correct. From a 2A position he is dead wrong and I'll side with the 2A position all day long.

 

[revance]

theyre talking about the american god,,,these people dont think that its the same god that people in greece pray to...

im serious,,,very little global awareness and appreciation from these people

LMAO!!!

It just really bothers me that any person who truly believes in the human right to defend themselves would argue against this lawsuit simply because a group they disagree with on other political issues supports it.

There are too many posts in this thread of people saying "If the ACLU supports it, I am against it". So wrong.

It also really bothers me that a group such as GOA would take that same stance.

 

[thompal]

What???

Sure, as long as we let citizens carry, then all is good.

... well as long as they let white people carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let Christians carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let men carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let hunters carry, then all is good.
... well as long as the let people with a "special need" to carry, then all is good.
... well as long as they let police carry, then all is good.

When does it stop?

It doesn't. As long as we allow the government to define who may own and carry a firearm, the government will continue to narrow it down to an ever smaller group, until only police will be allowed to carry.

You either believe that everyone has the right to defend their life, or you believe that not everyone does, and who are you, or I, or the government to decide whose life is worth defending?

 

[thompal]

From a "states rights" (10A) position, Pratt is correct. From a 2A position he is dead wrong and I'll side with the 2A position all day long.

I don't quite agree with that. I support states' right 100%, but the states can not make laws that are more restrictive than the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot, for example, eliminate the 4th Amendment, and more than a state can ignore the 2nd.

 

[JoshuaW]

Why should we be backing the giving of rights of citizens to noncitizens?

Why shouldnt we? What makes a "noncitizen" any different? Hell, what makes an illegal any different? Civil rights are NOT reserved for only US citizens, they should be for all people. It is PROGRESS if people consider gun ownership and/or carry to be a right that is more fundamental, like Freedom of Speech.

This is a good thing. The more that gun ownership is considered to be a basic right, the more likely we are to making progress with gun laws, and the harder it will be for people to trample all over them.

From a "states rights" (10A) position, Pratt is correct. From a 2A position he is dead wrong and I'll side with the 2A position all day long.

Exactly. That is why the Constitution has the 2A before the 10A, and the 1A before the 2A. They are, in my opinion, in the order of importance and in the order that they should be considered. While I cherish my 2A rights, I still find the First more important. (And the Second the tools to guarantee it)

 

[Hotdoger]

Why shouldnt we? What makes a "noncitizen" any different? Hell, what makes an illegal any different?

Any different? Uh They are non citizens and do no enjoy the same rights as citizens.


Civil rights are NOT reserved for only US citizens, they should be for all people.

Iatola Komani sure agrees with you.


It is PROGRESS if people consider gun ownership and/or carry to be a right that is more fundamental, like Freedom of Speech.

Yes as enumerated in OUR constitution, not the rest of the worlds.

This is a good thing. The more that gun ownership is considered to be a basic right, the more likely we are to making progress with gun laws, and the harder it will be for people to trample all over them.

Those that have tried to deny it are the ACLU members and backers.

.

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't quite agree with that. I support states' right 100%, but the states can not make laws that are more restrictive than the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot, for example, eliminate the 4th Amendment, and more than a state can ignore the 2nd.

The you've not been paying attention to the myraid laws passed by states and municipalities for the last 100 years. It's done all the time and more and more people on the right are calling for strengthened 10th Amendment rights for the states. The states can pretty well do what they want, as it is. It has to be challenged before the highest courts to be overturned and that has seldom happened.

 

[paul1968mcr]

Actually Resident Aliens are neither Citizens or Non-Citizens they are a group in the middle.

Voting and Registering for Selective Service are Privileges of the Citizen.

Resident Aliens Pay every single Tax that you and I pay to live here. They have met a stricter bar than you and I to be here. They are often sacrificing a lot of to come here.

Actually my 15 year old son who's a Greencard holder, as we all are, had to renew his unexpired Greencard at 14 years old as part of select services registration.

 

[dross]

The you've not been paying attention to the myraid laws passed by states and municipalities for the last 100 years. It's done all the time and more and more people on the right are calling for strengthened 10th Amendment rights for the states. The states can pretty well do what they want, as it is. It has to be challenged before the highest courts to be overturned and that has seldom happened.

I get the idea that you're not much of a fan of the 10th Amendment.

 

[mrjarrell]

I get the idea that you're not much of a fan of the 10th Amendment.

I'm a fan of all of them, but I recognise that states don't have rights and that the 10th vests too much power in the states, rather than in the people. I don't like governments having too much power.