The Sheriff
11-17-2005, 12:20 AM
I've concluded that the American Civil Liberties Union is completely hypocritical whenever it comes to the issue of firearms or other weapons in the hands of civilians. They should be, and according to what they say certainly ought to be, protecting man's natural and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect himself and his nation.Let's see what they have to say; I'll leave it up to discussion to judge these statements.
About Us (http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm)
The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities 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. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
[One of the primary natural rights backed by American tradition is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.]
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.
[The Second Amendment is the only real check to minority power.]
ACLU Position Paper (http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=10740)
We're for traditional American values. The ACLU is the nation's most conservative organization. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values--the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
[Traditional, conservative, American civic values, Constitution, Bill of Rights... let's just bludgeon the Second Amendment to death while we're at it.]
We're not anti-anything. The only thing we fight are attempts to take away or limit your civil liberties.
[You're certainly not helping, and where's the "fighting" spirit when we need it?]
We're there for you. Rich or poor.
[Extra taxes, hiked up prices, regulation, urban ordinances... way to help out the poor and leave them defenseless.]
Police Practices: Gun Control (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25)
The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership.
[Huh. That's strange. I don't remember the word "reasonable" in the Second Amendment. Of course, it's all up to whoever's in charge to decide how "reasonable" something is. Maybe we should only allow "reasonable" freedom of expression and privacy; so much for abortion. Maybe we should only allow "reasonable" equality; separate but equal sounds reasonable, assuming slave emancipation itself isn't unreasonable. What is up with the ACLU and writing up their own pretend Bill of Rights? I'm still trying to find "separation of church and state," but no luck thus far.]
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control.
[Neutral by who's standards? Getting to the happy medium between Adolf Hitler and Darth Vader? Hiding "neutrally" behind Hillary Clinton? Maybe you mean "reasonably neutral."]
We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership.
[Database error: Second Amendment. // For more information, see shall not be infringed.]
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it.
Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.
[According to the old documents you claim to protect, the answer is: not at all. If you're not happy with that, give up on the infantile genocide for five minutes and make a campaign for a constitutional amendment.]
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller].
[The ACLU should agree to actually read the court cases so they know what they're talking about. In U.S. v. Miller, U.S. didn't even win when Miller was absent during whole thing. Not only that, but the Court only stated that Miller's weapon was perhaps not guaranteed because it was a sawed-off shotgun with, supposedly, no military purpose. In fact, U.S. v. Miller could be used to protect a citizen's right to carry around an M-16 or any other "military" weapon.]
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one.
[Right, of course. Collective. I think I'm starting to get them. Hey, let's make freedom of religion a collective right too! The U.S. as a whole has the right to be Cathloic; screw everyone else. The U.S. has the collective right to legalize slavery. The right to free speech is a collective right and can only be exercised by government-funded media. Wow, this is fun!
...the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.
[Damned computer errors, that Constitution program must be acting up again. Maybe it's just because I'm not running the new ACLU version. Anyways, the Constitution does say, "the people." Maybe they're version says "the government," but I can't see it anywhere over here. I wonder if these so-called "people" are the same guys mentioned in the other amendments that they do protect. Funny how it works out... you'd think that Tommy Jefferson would've left a footnote or something stating that these "people" are a whole different bunch.]
The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue.
[Hey... what happened to this "neutrality" issue? I guess it's about as variable as "reasonable," "Constitution," and, in this case, "modern."]
Wait, and what's this? Do we have a statement by the Supreme Court justices themselves to the ACLU from 1990?
Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae [ACLU] that the Framers used this phrase 'simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy'...'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. '...the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community...".
Now, what do you know? You learn something knew every day. Well, you do if you're not in charge of ACLU policy and making information up, anyways. (They're not into that whole "reading" fad.)
The result of this is an ACLU that willfully and unintelligently ignores the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and everything the organization claims to stand for. The union is dishonest, hypocritical, and detrimental to the American way of life preserved by God-given and Constitutional rights. In effect, the ACLU has declared an infinite hunting season on any right, and licenses will be automatically awarded to any willing to leave behind knowledge, intelligence, and integrity.
About Us (http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm)
The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities 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. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
[One of the primary natural rights backed by American tradition is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.]
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.
[The Second Amendment is the only real check to minority power.]
ACLU Position Paper (http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=10740)
We're for traditional American values. The ACLU is the nation's most conservative organization. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values--the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
[Traditional, conservative, American civic values, Constitution, Bill of Rights... let's just bludgeon the Second Amendment to death while we're at it.]
We're not anti-anything. The only thing we fight are attempts to take away or limit your civil liberties.
[You're certainly not helping, and where's the "fighting" spirit when we need it?]
We're there for you. Rich or poor.
[Extra taxes, hiked up prices, regulation, urban ordinances... way to help out the poor and leave them defenseless.]
Police Practices: Gun Control (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25)
The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership.
[Huh. That's strange. I don't remember the word "reasonable" in the Second Amendment. Of course, it's all up to whoever's in charge to decide how "reasonable" something is. Maybe we should only allow "reasonable" freedom of expression and privacy; so much for abortion. Maybe we should only allow "reasonable" equality; separate but equal sounds reasonable, assuming slave emancipation itself isn't unreasonable. What is up with the ACLU and writing up their own pretend Bill of Rights? I'm still trying to find "separation of church and state," but no luck thus far.]
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control.
[Neutral by who's standards? Getting to the happy medium between Adolf Hitler and Darth Vader? Hiding "neutrally" behind Hillary Clinton? Maybe you mean "reasonably neutral."]
We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership.
[Database error: Second Amendment. // For more information, see shall not be infringed.]
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it.
Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.
[According to the old documents you claim to protect, the answer is: not at all. If you're not happy with that, give up on the infantile genocide for five minutes and make a campaign for a constitutional amendment.]
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller].
[The ACLU should agree to actually read the court cases so they know what they're talking about. In U.S. v. Miller, U.S. didn't even win when Miller was absent during whole thing. Not only that, but the Court only stated that Miller's weapon was perhaps not guaranteed because it was a sawed-off shotgun with, supposedly, no military purpose. In fact, U.S. v. Miller could be used to protect a citizen's right to carry around an M-16 or any other "military" weapon.]
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one.
[Right, of course. Collective. I think I'm starting to get them. Hey, let's make freedom of religion a collective right too! The U.S. as a whole has the right to be Cathloic; screw everyone else. The U.S. has the collective right to legalize slavery. The right to free speech is a collective right and can only be exercised by government-funded media. Wow, this is fun!
...the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.
[Damned computer errors, that Constitution program must be acting up again. Maybe it's just because I'm not running the new ACLU version. Anyways, the Constitution does say, "the people." Maybe they're version says "the government," but I can't see it anywhere over here. I wonder if these so-called "people" are the same guys mentioned in the other amendments that they do protect. Funny how it works out... you'd think that Tommy Jefferson would've left a footnote or something stating that these "people" are a whole different bunch.]
The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue.
[Hey... what happened to this "neutrality" issue? I guess it's about as variable as "reasonable," "Constitution," and, in this case, "modern."]
Wait, and what's this? Do we have a statement by the Supreme Court justices themselves to the ACLU from 1990?
Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae [ACLU] that the Framers used this phrase 'simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy'...'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. '...the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community...".
Now, what do you know? You learn something knew every day. Well, you do if you're not in charge of ACLU policy and making information up, anyways. (They're not into that whole "reading" fad.)
The result of this is an ACLU that willfully and unintelligently ignores the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and everything the organization claims to stand for. The union is dishonest, hypocritical, and detrimental to the American way of life preserved by God-given and Constitutional rights. In effect, the ACLU has declared an infinite hunting season on any right, and licenses will be automatically awarded to any willing to leave behind knowledge, intelligence, and integrity.