is the ACLU realy protecting my rights?

[TheMontashu]

Now I am for the ACLU defending our rights, but they should in no way have a position on an issue beyond "if the law says you can you can." They will defend NAMBLA's right to exist but not my right to have a gun. You may say guns kill people but it is not hard saying that child molesters are worse than gun owners.

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25


Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Infringe
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

(got the info from http://www.usconstitution.net/)

[chicodude]

Guns are for the weak.



There. There is my Anti-gun statement for the day.

[SkaredShtles]

Guns are for the weak.



There. There is my Anti-gun statement for the day.
That's kind of....... ummm.... weak. :p

-S.S.-

[gschuette]

Guns are for the weak.



There. There is my Anti-gun statement for the day.

So if someone breaks into your home wielding a gun you will still be able to fight them off because your lack of a gun gives you superhuman strength and bulletproof skin?

[Jr_Bullit]

As a small single woman with only a cat to protect my home at this point, I strongly disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of what would seem to be a fairly black and white statement. I want the right to protect my home, myself, and my family, and if my weapon of choice were a gun, then so be it. Better that than a baseball bat some big ugly dood can beat me up with ;).

There - my pro gun statement for the day.

[mack]

Guns are for the weak.



There. There is my Anti-gun statement for the day.


The average NRA member is more than capapble of kicking the **** out of the average NAMBLA member anyday, without guns.

[TheMontashu]

The average NRA member is more than capapble of kicking the **** out of the average NAMBLA member anyday, without guns.
I would be one of the targets of an average NAMBLA member so have decided to join the NRA(not cause of NAMBLA) and protect myself

[chicodude]

So if someone breaks into your home wielding a gun you will still be able to fight them off because your lack of a gun gives you superhuman strength and bulletproof skin?



But that not what I am saying. A gun is steel courage. The guy who breaks into a house (or pulls out a gun on someone) is too afraid to fight the victim.


Okay. Tell me this. What good have guns done for society?

What problems have the solved that couldn't be solved with a big stick or a well thrown rock?

[mack]

But that not what I am saying. A gun is steel courage. The guy who breaks into a house (or pulls out a gun on someone) is too afraid to fight the victim.


Okay. Tell me this. What good have guns done for society?

What problems have the solved that couldn't be solved with a big stick or a well thrown rock?

Well, lets not start this... i could argue the same with SUV's. What good have they done, or cigarets as well. Its just a part of society that you as a citizen are going to have to deal with or better yet move to Canada. :angry:


Gun or no gun, a bank person will still give you the money. I remember a blind guy in CT who robbed a bank by just asking for all the money, he did not get far though, as a citizen stoped him and he gave the money back...

[chicodude]

Cigarettes have done no good.


The suv argument is no really valid though.

[Jr_Bullit]

But that not what I am saying. A gun is steel courage. The guy who breaks into a house (or pulls out a gun on someone) is too afraid to fight the victim.


Okay. Tell me this. What good have guns done for society?

What problems have the solved that couldn't be solved with a big stick or a well thrown rock?

So...Trivia Question for you:

What 1st world, well respected country in Europe requires Every household to have a gun and every individual to be properly trained with one?

Let's start reviewing this particular countries statistics and compare them to that of the comparatively violent US.

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html (long article)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200310020833.asp

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>
Okay. Tell me this. What good have guns done for society?

Well, if the bad guys would agree to only use rocks and sticks, then you'd have a point.

If you really want to see the good guns have done, pick up a gun magazine some time and read the section that describes people who have successfully defended themselves with a firearm.

And do we need to get into the Second World War? I'd say guns "did good" for society in that "little" conflict........

-S.S.-

[SkaredShtles]

So...Trivia Question for you:

What 1st world, well respected country in Europe requires Every household to have a gun and every individual to be properly trained with one?
Switzerland! What do I win??

-S.S.-

[Silver]

Well, the Swiss are generally better educated than your average American, and they aren't bat**** crazy.

They also have very reasonable drug laws, and did I mention they aren't bat**** crazy?

[chicodude]

No one has yet to answer my question.


What good have guns done for society?

That article just told me:

If only a select few have guns, crime rate goes up. If EVERYONE has a gun, Crime rates go down. What's the point of even having them?

[mack]

The Swiss are really crazy... we had a swiss couple rent our 3rd floor apartment in New Haven, and both were PHD's in yeast science... now tell me that they arent crazy. :D

[SkaredShtles]

No one has yet to answer my question.


What good have guns done for society?

I told you. Every time someone an individual defends her/himself with a firearm, "society" has been served positively by firearms.

Say a 250lb man is hell bent on raping a 100lb woman. Do you think a stick or well-thrown stone is going to help that woman? Maybe. But a .45 auto will be a *much* better choice for her.........

-S.S.-

[Silver]

I told you. Every time someone an individual defends her/himself with a firearm, "society" has been served positively by firearms.

Say a 250lb man is hell bent on raping a 100lb woman. Do you think a stick or well-thrown stone is going to help that woman? Maybe. But a .45 auto will be a *much* better choice for her.........

-S.S.-

And every time there is a gun accident, or an armed robbery, society has been served detrimentally by firearms.

Which way are the scales tipping? Say a 120lb outcast is intent on wasting his class at school...a knife might work, but a couple of guns seem to do a bang up job as well...

[TheMontashu]

No one has yet to answer my question.


What good have guns done for society?

That article just told me:

If only a select few have guns, crime rate goes up. If EVERYONE has a gun, Crime rates go down. What's the point of even having them?
I think guns did a very good job of stoping hitler?

[Silver]

I think guns did a very good job of stoping hitler?

And if Hitler had no guns?

[mack]

And if Hitler had no guns?


Now we are just thinking "what if pigs could fly?"...


Look at the link that some one posted, did you read it?

[chicodude]

And if Hitler had no guns?



Whoa, Someone see's my point.


And yes, I do feel a well throw stone to the head will help alot. :sneaky:

[mack]

You will never be able to take guns away...

If the USA ever tries to ban guns, people will start fighting. You can pry them from my cold dead fingers.

[chicodude]

You will never be able to take guns away...

If the USA ever tries to ban guns, people will start fighting. You can pry them from my cold dead fingers.



For once, you're right. It would be damn near impossible to take guns away from the people.

I say we make bullets super expensive.

[mack]

That really wouldnt do anything other than making hunters pissed... after all, how many bullets do you need when sticking up a 7-11? You can use a friggen squirt gun painted black and still get the money...

[TheMontashu]

Whoa, Someone see's my point.


And yes, I do feel a well throw stone to the head will help alot. :sneaky:
the fact is hitler had guns, guns exist YOU CANT CHANGE THAT your an idealist you should be a REALIST

[chicodude]

the fact is hitler had guns, guns exist YOU CANT CHANGE THAT your an idealist you should be a REALIST



Psh, You're still a little pussy that has to hide behind a gun for protection.


How's that for realism? :cool:

[Jr_Bullit]

No one has yet to answer my question.


What good have guns done for society?

That article just told me:

If only a select few have guns, crime rate goes up. If EVERYONE has a gun, Crime rates go down. What's the point of even having them?

Okay...so hypothetically speaking...if we never invented guns,and there weren't such things as guns, then we really wouldn't need them. The bad guys and bullies would use physical size, strength, rocks and sticks to do the job. And the innocent people would defend themselves with equally creative methods.

Or - hypothetically speaking, we invent a handheld weapon that disables guns from a significant distance (like...100'?), well then, guns would suddenly become less popular and we'd have no need for them.

But, in a world where the goal is survival ...and the means of survival really are up for grabs depending on your morals, upbringing, and what you deem as good fun for making money and procreation...well then there's gonna be bad guys and good guys and the bad guys are always gonna find away to have a convenient and scary method of destruction on hand...so the good guys need to have an equally convenient and scary method of destruction...or method for defense against the other scary method of destruction.

:D How'd I do? Does that answer your question?

[Jr_Bullit]

And every time there is a gun accident, or an armed robbery, society has been served detrimentally by firearms.

Which way are the scales tipping? Say a 120lb outcast is intent on wasting his class at school...a knife might work, but a couple of guns seem to do a bang up job as well...

True, but that's because the stigma of guns are at this point that they are a dangerous thing to even have around. People seem to think that if you buy a gun, you must not need any proper training on how to "handle" a gun. A small woman, or large man who actually knows what the hell they are doing with a gun, poses no danger to herself or her family.

If society changed its perceptions about guns and was just a little more educated and respectful of the stupid things, then perhaps more 100lb women would have them. :) That and a big mean scary dog ;).

[Jr_Bullit]

Whoa, Someone see's my point.


And yes, I do feel a well throw stone to the head will help alot. :sneaky:

Dood...how many women, and modern day men have you seen throw properly? I aim well enough if I concentrate and take my time and am not nervous...but ****...me holding a fist sized rock is not going to stop another person while they sit and figure out if I know how to use it. They'll just keep on comin...

[Jr_Bullit]

For once, you're right. It would be damn near impossible to take guns away from the people.

I say we make bullets super expensive.

Uhh...that's the argument used for gas...some cars are getting smaller and more efficient, but the opposite is true too...lol...and people still find ways to drive lots.

[chicodude]

If gas was 300 dollars a gallon I would bet people would drive alot less.


I know alot of girls can'y throw, but a swift kick in the nuts will provide them with enough time to escape

[chicodude]

Okay...so hypothetically speaking...if we never invented guns,and there weren't such things as guns, then we really wouldn't need them. The bad guys and bullies would use physical size, strength, rocks and sticks to do the job. And the innocent people would defend themselves with equally creative methods.

Or - hypothetically speaking, we invent a handheld weapon that disables guns from a significant distance (like...100'?), well then, guns would suddenly become less popular and we'd have no need for them.

But, in a world where the goal is survival ...and the means of survival really are up for grabs depending on your morals, upbringing, and what you deem as good fun for making money and procreation...well then there's gonna be bad guys and good guys and the bad guys are always gonna find away to have a convenient and scary method of destruction on hand...so the good guys need to have an equally convenient and scary method of destruction...or method for defense against the other scary method of destruction.

:D How'd I do? Does that answer your question?



Good enough I guess.


;)

[TheMontashu]

For once, you're right. It would be damn near impossible to take guns away from the people.

I say we make bullets super expensive.
i can cast my own bullets. lets not forget if bullets are realy expencive
CRIMINALS are ganna fallow the law when getting ammo!

[TheMontashu]

Psh, You're still a little pussy that has to hide behind a gun for protection.


How's that for realism? :cool:
so what im a 125 pound pussy but knowing how to use a gun will keep me alive

[jaydee]

So if someone breaks into your home wielding a gun you will still be able to fight them off because your lack of a gun gives you superhuman strength and bulletproof skin?

Is this something that happens to you frequently. I think I'd just move. Why would anyone want to live in a place where they thought they needed a gun so they could shoot people first, just in case they might get shot themselves? Sounds like a case of way too much primetime TV in your upbringing.

[chicodude]

so what im a 125 pound pussy but knowing how to use a gun will keep me alive



I know how to use a gun. It doesn't take a friggin genuis to use/clean/assemble a gun.

when haveyou ever run across a situation where you needed a gun to survive? I could see if you lived in the wild, and you had bigass scary animals coming to eat you, but you don't

[valve bouncer]

I say we make bullets super expensive.
No Chris Rock said that. You're just copying him. :nono:
(Backs slowly out of the 5000000th merrcans talkin' about guns thread) :thumb:

[TheMontashu]

Is this something that happens to you frequently. I think I'd just move. Why would anyone want to live in a place where they thought they needed a gun so they could shoot people first, just in case they might get shot themselves? Sounds like a case of way too much primetime TV in your upbringing.
Jest remember the places that don't have as much crime have more guns. in D.C. they have banned guns and yet the murder rate is 6TIMES the national average

[chicodude]

No Chris Rock said that. You're just copying him. :nono:
(Backs slowly out of the 5000000th merrcans talkin' about guns thread) :thumb:


That idea was around long before chris rock.

[jaydee]

Jest remember the places that don't have as much crime have less crime. in D.C. they have banned guns and yet the murder rate is 6TIMES the national average


That's because the place is riddled with policitians.

[jaydee]

That's because the place is riddled with policitians.

I guess "politicians" what I meant. Which I believe is a synonym for "criminals".

[SkaredShtles]

Whoa, Someone see's my point.


And yes, I do feel a well throw stone to the head will help alot. :sneaky:
Well, if you're going to try to make retarted points, how about we go the Full Monty and say what if *NO* weapon at all had every been invented....... :rolleyes: Sheesh.

-S.S.-

[valve bouncer]

Jest remember the places that don't have as much crime have less crime.
You don't say. Such profundity from one so young.

[Silver]

Well, if you're going to try to make retarted points, how about we go the Full Monty and say what if *NO* weapon at all had every been invented....... :rolleyes: Sheesh.

-S.S.-

You claimed that guns were good because they "won" the second world war.

Since I can make a coherent argument that a gun started both world wars, maybe we should just stick to throwing rocks, if you know what I mean...

[Damn True]

But that not what I am saying. A gun is steel courage. The guy who breaks into a house (or pulls out a gun on someone) is too afraid to fight the victim.


Okay. Tell me this. What good have guns done for society?

What problems have the solved that couldn't be solved with a big stick or a well thrown rock?

Well, when I lived in NYC in the early 90's a man weilding a knife attempted to carjack me. When I put a .357 in his face it diffused the situation.

Less than a year later on a subway a man accosted a woman on the other end of the car I was on. He clubbed the lady with the butt-end of a little tiny pi$$-ant pistol and attempted to steal her purse. One again, a well timed facial placement of a .357 diffused the situation.

[TheMontashu]

You claimed that guns were good because they "won" the second world war.

Since I can make a coherent argument that a gun started both world wars, maybe we should just stick to throwing rocks, if you know what I mean...
You look dumber than me, the point has already been made that there is no way to eliminate guns

[chicodude]

You look dumber than me, the point has already been made that there is no way to eliminate guns



I don't think that's possible dude.


Where did he say he wanted to eliminate guns?

[TheMontashu]

I don't think that's possible dude.


Where did he say he wanted to eliminate guns?
it was implied

[chicodude]

it was implied


Well, Not really. He said he could make AN ARUGUMENT about said idea, He didn't say it was his own or that he even supported it.


You claimed that guns were good because they "won" the second world war.

Since I can make a coherent argument that a gun started both world wars, maybe we should just stick to throwing rocks, if you know what I mean...

[ummbikes]

He clubbed the lady with the butt-end of a little tiny pi$$-ant pistol and attempted to steal her purse.

I'm all for having guns. So don't get me wrong.

The fact you use your weapon as a tool to diffuse a situation is not exactly showing responsible gun ownership. I know the police do it, but they also have been trained in how to diffuse situations, plus are mostly in uniform, and have a badge. You have pointed out over the years that you are former military and maybe you have the training too, but if you pop some dude for jacking your car and get charged for man slaughter don't be suprised. I'm sure you are aware that you can only use as much force as needed to protect your property, and in the case of your ride is the thiefs live worth less than a car? Ya, I know you said he had knife, but I'm trying to make a point here for the kiddos.

Have guns, just know when to use 'em and when not too.



I'm glad it worked for you. Really.

[TheMontashu]

I wouldent trust a cop with my life. one time i was out shooting a cop had his gun jam, i fixed it so he let me empy a mag. well my group was about half the size of his, with his gun that i have never shot before AND HE IS A COP!!!

[chicodude]

..............one time i was out shooting a cop........






:eek:

[Damn True]

I'm all for having guns. So don't get me wrong.

The fact you use your weapon as a tool to diffuse a situation is not exactly showing responsible gun ownership. I know the police do it, but they also have been trained in how to diffuse situations, plus are mostly in uniform, and have a badge. You have pointed out over the years that you are former military and maybe you have the training too, but if you pop some dude for jacking your car and get charged for man slaughter don't be suprised. I'm sure you are aware that you can only use as much force as needed to protect your property, and in the case of your ride is the thiefs live worth less than a car? Ya, I know you said he had knife, but I'm trying to make a point here for the kiddos.

Have guns, just know when to use 'em and when not too.



I'm glad it worked for you. Really.

I hear you and in most cases agree. I have not felt a need to carry a weapon since leaving NYC in 94. At the time the thinking was that Id rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

[TheMontashu]

:eek:
next year im ganna try our for reagonels for rifle:thumb:

[sanjuro]

Firstly, TheMontashu brings up a very legitmate point, which is why the ACLU does not protect the individual's right to bear arms, while other amendments are always seen from the individual first. I wouldn't contrast NAMBLA with the NRA, but it is a valid point to make.

Secondly, someone made a point about the value of guns, in the negative. I often think about the responsiblity of the police, who are armed and are trusted to protect my safety. In the same fashion, I think responsible gun owners certainly have the right to bear arms.

Obviously, not everyone can be trusted with a weapon, just like not everyone can be trusted behind the wheel. But just like there are limitations on drivers, there should be control over guns.

Finally, when it comes to guns, I have an odd perspective. I have never owned a gun, and I was raised in NYC, with extremely strict gun laws. I have also lived in New Orleans where there almost no gun control.

In Louisana I was held up on the street at gun point, and on another occasion, I fought off a housebreaker. In either case, I did not need a gun, and if I had one, very likely someone would be dead, possibly me.

I don't need a gun, so I don't own one. But I can appreciate having a gun, so I would hope my right to own one is protected. I also hope there is some control, so not every loser can own one.

P.S. I trust TheMontashu with guns, because his family is responsible about their ownership.

[fluff]

P.S. I trust TheMontashu with guns.

I agree. So long as we keep guns only in the hands of intelligent, literate citizens we will have no worries.

[ummbikes]

I agree. So long as we keep guns only in the hands of intelligent, literate citizens we will have no worries.


I tend to agree, I'm not a full hardcore NRA gun owner. Background checks, and safety training are fine by me.

[fluff]

I tend to agree, I'm not a full hardcore NRA gun owner. Background checks, and safety training are fine by me.
How's your irony filter these days?

[Silver]

How's your irony filter these days?

Clogged :D

[SkaredShtles]

<snip> why the ACLU does not protect the individual's right to bear arms, while other amendments are always seen from the individual first.
The ACLU is more a political organization than a "civil liberties" defense institute........... they take the cases that will get them publicity which will lead to more money for the ACLU.

-S.S.-

[ummbikes]

How's your irony filter these days?



I shot it.

[JRogers]

I am just curious if any of you actually read the ACLU's statement. From the first post to the last, it seemed most of you didn't or just didn't care to discuss it.

They are NOT against your right to own a gun. All it says is that they agree WITH THE SUPREME COURT and lower courts that that right is not constitutionally protected because it is not in the context of state militias and such, which were the original impetus behind the amendment. It essentially says that they don't care if you own a gun or not and such a right is neither confirmed nor denied by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. That is all; end of story.

Don't believe me? Check it:

"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, such as licensing and registration."

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. "

And consider the ACLU's mission: "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights"


They are not there to do anything besides this. Since the scope of the Constitution and Bill of Rights end at whether guns are allowed to be in the hands of individuals for private use, the ACLU has no desire to change such a right. I am not stating my position on gun control one way or the other. Simply, I do not understand how this discussion was started with the ACLU's position as a primer. You getting mad at the ACLU for their position on gun ownership is like me getting mad at the national government for not intervening when I was losing a game of bowling. One has nothing to do with the other.

The pertinent aspect of this discussion should have been refocused if we actually want to talk about what was originally brought up. Most Americans see their right to gun ownership as an absolute freedom granted to them by the founding fathers. Why do most Americans think this is the case when it appears that the highest court in the land has disagreed with them? Could it be that the founders of the constitution, in reality, had no intention of granting the right of gun ownership to people so they could hunt, target shoot, protect themselves from robbery or commit crimes? That is what the ACLU thinks.

Think of a parallel: Suppose the Bill of Rights granted the right to have a particular type of drug in your home and possession because when the document was written, this drug was the only treatment for a disease that was prevalent and people were afraid that the government might not let people have free access to this drug. Fast forward 200 years or so. The disease is no longer a problem, the drug has been long replaced but the law is there for whatever reason. And it is worded such that one could potentially justify keeping a nice, big stash of good ol' crack in their medicine cabinet. Well, the law was never there to defend your right to have some crack and get high.

Don't read too much into my analogy here, just consider it.

[TheMontashu]

the defanition of a malitia is a band of orinary citizens making up a fighting force to defend themselfs

[sanjuro]

Think of a parallel: Suppose the Bill of Rights granted the right to have a particular type of drug in your home and possession because when the document was written, this drug was the only treatment for a disease that was prevalent and people were afraid that the government might not let people have free access to this drug. Fast forward 200 years or so. The disease is no longer a problem, the drug has been long replaced but the law is there for whatever reason. And it is worded such that one could potentially justify keeping a nice, big stash of good ol' crack in their medicine cabinet. Well, the law was never there to defend your right to have some crack and get high.

Don't read too much into my analogy here, just consider it.

Firstly, I am editing JRogers comments out of sequence.

Laws can be changed, removed, and reinterpreted. The Founding Fathers left the Constitution open for change and reinterpretation and also left out specifics except for basic legal rights.

Gun ownership is still guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. If enough Americans felt that guns should be outlawed, the 2nd Amendment would be repealed, similar to the way alcohol was banned with 18th Amendment, or the way the 18th was repealed with the 21st. So obviously, the 2nd Amendment is a very valid right with most Americans.

I am just curious if any of you actually read the ACLU's statement. From the first post to the last, it seemed most of you didn't or just didn't care to discuss it.

They are NOT against your right to own a gun. All it says is that they agree WITH THE SUPREME COURT and lower courts that that right is not constitutionally protected because it is not in the context of state militias and such, which were the original impetus behind the amendment. It essentially says that they don't care if you own a gun or not and such a right is neither confirmed nor denied by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. That is all; end of story.

Don't believe me? Check it:

"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, such as licensing and registration."

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. "

And consider the ACLU's mission: "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights"



I was discussing the issue of gun registration with TheMontashu today (in person, no less). I stated my belief that guns should be at least registered, and he responded that the government should be not be allowed to know who owned guns.

While I think total anomity for gun owners is asking for disaster, TheMontashu made a good point, which is that the 2nd Amendment does not state the need for regulation of guns. While I consider gun control necessary for public safety, it is a point which can be argued constitutionally against. And if this is the case, then why doesn't the ACLU argue against gun regulation?

The ACLU advocates cases where the Bill of Rights are impinged. Gun control could be considered such a case. For example, if TheMontashu was punished in some way for speaking against gun control, this would be a textbook 1st Amendment case for the ACLU. However, the ACLU does nothing for him in protecting his rights to own a gun.

The reality today is that the need for gun ownership has changed dramatically, from frontier times to a modern and safer world (at least from situations where a gun could be used). But the ACLU does not consider the consequences of their lawsuits, just the protection of constitutional rights. So it is a valid question why the ACLU does not do more for 2nd Amendment cases?


They are not there to do anything besides this. Since the scope of the Constitution and Bill of Rights end at whether guns are allowed to be in the hands of individuals for private use, the ACLU has no desire to change such a right. I am not stating my position on gun control one way or the other. Simply, I do not understand how this discussion was started with the ACLU's position as a primer. You getting mad at the ACLU for their position on gun ownership is like me getting mad at the national government for not intervening when I was losing a game of bowling. One has nothing to do with the other.


It is a valid discussion about the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment, something I will have to ponder some more. It is just that many Americans, including myself, think guns are bad, and that lies in their intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment.

I read the ACLU's statement before I posted anything on this topic, and I have not gotten a good counter argument why the American Civil Liberties Union does not defend 2nd Amendment cases.


The pertinent aspect of this discussion should have been refocused if we actually want to talk about what was originally brought up. Most Americans see their right to gun ownership as an absolute freedom granted to them by the founding fathers. Why do most Americans think this is the case when it appears that the highest court in the land has disagreed with them? Could it be that the founders of the constitution, in reality, had no intention of granting the right of gun ownership to people so they could hunt, target shoot, protect themselves from robbery or commit crimes? That is what the ACLU thinks.


Finally, if you look at the NRA site, they quote Jefferson and some of the other framers specifically mention individual ownership of guns:

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83

Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Richard Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms." Thomas Paine noted, "[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."

And you mention the Highest Court disagreed with the absolute right to bear arms. I would like to see that Supreme Court case.

[fluff]

the defanition of a malitia is a band of orinary citizens making up a fighting force to defend themselfs
Now all I need is the defanition of orinary!

[springfield1911]

San Francisco just put a initiative on the november ballot to ban all handgun ownership in the city, along with smoking in public places. I hate SF because too many limousine-liberals there who never had to actually work for a living.

The way I see it is, a place that tramples on individual rights like that also happens to try to push for individual freedom in the sense of gay marriage and all, to be honest I'm really glad I have nothing to do with that god-forsaken-dump, despite going to school very near it. I hate hypocracy, that's all.

Oh yeah, for all the Dems out there, you do realize that gun-control and gay marriage lost you Ohio, right?

[JRogers]

Again, read the ACLU's statement:

"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] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia [...] The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "


To take some quotes from the Supreme Court decision:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The court decided that the original intent of the amendment was to protect the right of states to have a militia. So, it follows that if the possession of a gun in no way is related to the keeping of a militia, it is not a constitutionally protected right. After reading the Supreme Court decision and argument and then reading the NRA's take, I cannot side with the NRA's interpretation of the case. I think their understanding of it is skewed with careful omissions and calculated phrasing so as to not set the limits that the case actually placed on the right to bear arms. Further, most all the quotes and arguments they supply do not appear to contradict the decision of the court or establish the the intention of the founding fathers extended beyond the keeping of a militia. For example, in Paine's quote, by "invader" and "plunderer" I do not think he means a midnight burglar or carjacker; rather, it seems that he would mean an invading army or rebellious group. The (constitutional) right to have weapons is a safeguard against tyranny, unpopular revolution and foreign invasion.

Yes, the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written in a style that is at once strong and general so as to secure rights while allowing interpretation and change. However, no change has been put to the 2nd amendment and, as it stands according to the courts and to the ACLU, the amendment does not protect the absolute right to bear arms.

The ACLU does (or, rather, would) defend cases of infringement on 2nd amendment rights....that is, if it involved a legitimate militia and its members' right to have weapons. It is not like they are ignoring the 2nd amendment. As I tried to state, the conflict is not whether or not the ACLU should defend the 2nd amendment, but if the 2nd amendment even applies to anything in the modern day at all.

Also, remember that this does not mean that the right to have and own a gun is not guaranteed or absolute. It just means that it's not in the Bill of Rights.

And not regulating guns or keeping track of who owns them is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

[sanjuro]

I appreciate JRogers' thoughtful research on the matter. As a believer in gun control and having a certain fear of NRA members, I am not going to go full hilt in interpreting the 2nd Amendment or defending the rights of gun owners.

Ultimately, to take a step away from the politics of it, I do have to comment that I feel the ACLU is taking an exception to the liberties of gun owners. In public interest, I feel we need to have gun control, but public interest is not the first priority of the ACLU, but defending civil rights.

[Silver]

Here is the other question: With the NRA around, does it really make sense for the ACLU to concentrate on gun rights?

[TheMontashu]

Here is the other question: With the NRA around, does it really make sense for the ACLU to concentrate on gun rights?
It's not that there not doing anything, its that they have a position besides exactly what the law says

[JRogers]

the law says militia...

[spincrazy]

Montashu, please exercise your right to bear arms and shoot yourself anywhere you would like, preferably in those areas known for their reproductive abilities.

[Kornphlake]

All the ACLU really is good for is squaking at issues that really don't bother anybody but the ACLU exec's who need to know where their next paycheck is going to come from. I've yet to see where my own civil liberties have been protected by the ACLU, I've just seen where my right to worship has been castrated.

[TheMontashu]

the law says militia...
is a militia not a group of ordinary people who have armed them selvs to protect theere famlies and there own lives?

[TheMontashu]

Montashu, please exercise your right to bear arms and shoot yourself anywhere you would like, preferably in those areas known for their reproductive abilities.
spinzrazy your not funny people getting shot is not funny in any way shape or form, now I am not going to stoop to your level and wish harm apon you

[ohio]

Oh yeah, for all the Dems out there, you do realize that gun-control and gay marriage lost you Ohio, right?

Naw, I'm still here.

[ohio]

I've yet to see where my own civil liberties have been protected by the ACLU, I've just seen where my right to worship has been castrated.

You don't see where they've been protected, because you STILL have those rights.
Their job isn't to give you any new ones, it's to protect the ones you already have. So unless they fail, you won't notice any change. In that respect, you may say that your changing right to worship is a failure on their part. You will find however that they have adamantly defended the right to worship... those cases just don't get the same publicity.

Go to their site. Read the list of landmark decisions. Tell me if you still see them as useless.

edit: Case in point-
Michigan Court Punishes Catholic Man for Refusing Conversion to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (07/20/2004)
DETROIT - The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today asked the state Supreme Court to hear the case of a Catholic man who was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program, which prevented him from practicing his own religious faith. His request to be transferred to another program that would allow him to practice his own faith was denied and he was sentenced to six months in jail and boot camp.

edit again: Another-
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (06/03/2004)
RICHMOND, VA -- Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced today.

[Silver]

is a militia not a group of ordinary people who have armed them selvs to protect theere famlies and there own lives?

If you count as a militia, I'm a peloton when I out riding by myself...

[Kornphlake]

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (06/03/2004)
RICHMOND, VA -- Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced today.

edit again: Another-
Exactly my point, their method of deciding which side of the fence to fight on seems quite haphazard.

From the ACLU website:
CLEVELAND -- In a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, an appeals court today affirmed a lower court ruling that a public courtroom display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.


So it's okay to baptize in a public park, but not okay to have the ten commandments in a courtroom?

NEWARK, NJ-- The State Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed two jurors from a jury pool, one for wearing Muslim religious clothing and another for having engaged in missionary activity.


Would the ACLU have gotten involved had the jurors been citing the ten commandments? Would they have sided with the New Jersey prosecutor?

Maybe I have a weak case, but to me there does seem to be some anti-christian sentiment, if not anti-religion, in certain cases. Other cases are a matter of symantics more than civil liberties.

[Silver]

Let's see...a PUBLIC park. Baptize anyone you want there. Preach under the oak tree. Proclaim your allegiance to Satan for all I care. If you can't see the difference between that and a courtroom...you should move to Alabama and run for a judicial position.

[ohio]

Exactly my point, their method of deciding which side of the fence to fight on seems quite haphazard.

That's because you're assuming their dividing line for these issues is either for or against religion. That's not the ACLU's dividing line. They're neither for NOR against religion. They're for protecting your right to be either.

This is the same reason separation of church and state is not ANTI-religion.

I'm not saying I agree with everything they do, but they perform an overwhelming net good for our society. I'm curious how much those who claim that the ACLU is only about profit./paychecks have donated of themselves to society in the form of time, labor or money.

[TheMontashu]

If you count as a militia, I'm a peloton when I out riding by myself...
you can have any gun you want. I will give you 1000 practice rounds to get used to it, take it from you never having have shot it and still do better than you.

[Silver]

you can have any gun you want. I will give you 1000 practice rounds to get used to it, take it from you never having have shot it and still do better than you.

Bully for you.

Since you appear to have the reading comprehension of my 8 month old niece, let me spell it out in terms that you can understand.

A militia is not one person. It is an organized group.

A rider (and it doesn't matter if it's my, Lance Armstrong, or my niece on a tricycle) is not a peloton. A peloton is an organized group of riders.

Does that help, or do I need to draw a ****ing picture?

[ALEXIS_DH]

Bully for you.

Since you appear to have the reading comprehension of my 8 month old niece, let me spell it out in terms that you can understand.

A militia is not one person. It is an organized group.

A rider (and it doesn't matter if it's my, Lance Armstrong, or my niece on a tricycle) is not a peloton. A peloton is an organized group of riders.

Does that help, or do I need to draw a ****ing picture?



use some puppets.
sock-puppets they can be very educative.

[TheMontashu]

Bully for you.

Since you appear to have the reading comprehension of my 8 month old niece, let me spell it out in terms that you can understand.

A militia is not one person. It is an organized group.

A rider (and it doesn't matter if it's my, Lance Armstrong, or my niece on a tricycle) is not a peloton. A peloton is an organized group of riders.

Does that help, or do I need to draw a ****ing picture?
a militia is a group that organizes in times of crisis, and a peloton is made up of riders(by the way can you even ride in a peloton)