What Is The ACLU Trying To Accomplish? (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

The ACLU has sued the government in every state to defend the rights of NAMBLA to orchestrate child molestation. They have taken every state to court to get rid of sex offender registration laws. The way the law is designed, they are encouraged to frivolously file as many lawsuits (at a maximum expense to taxpayers) as they can because the more they file, the more money they make and the more they are likely to eventually win.

Their psychotically fringe interpretations of civil liberties are harming this country by aiding child molesters and by frivolously interfering with any and every kind of change Bush has tried to make to for our national security (even the changes Clinton tried to make).

Our liberal national security policies didn't prevent 9/11. The ACLU has opposed every single proposal to change things. If they want things to stay the way they were and they know that the way things were is what allowed 9/11, then aren't they advocating that the U.S. totally keep its guard down for another attack?

Those of us who see beyond the ACLU's promotional rhetoric see it for the overtly anti-U.S. partisan fringe group that it is.



Verify my assertions:

1) The San Diego Union-Tribune. February 18, 2005, Pg. A-1

"FBI targets pedophilia advocates;
Little-known group promotes `benevolent' sex."

2) National Review. February 27, 2004,

"No Boy Scouts."

3) The Boston Herald. July 18, 2001, Pg. 028

"ACLU terms NAMBLA suit a 'witch hunt.'"

 

[::Major_Baker::]

they also defend religious liberty when they feel it is necessary, and they even defended Rush Limbaughs right to privacy.

"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a web site, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."
http://www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag/aclu_to_defend_nambla.htm

Try as you want to make them 'pervert supporting' freaks, but they really adhere to the bill of rights. They are defending the right of NAMBLA to talk about what they want, not to committ crimes.

 

[Goobieman]

When, oh when, will the ACLU act to protect our rights under the 2nd Amendment?

Answer: Never. Like most liberals, they only worry about the civil liberties they like.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

When, oh when, will the ACLU act to protect our rights under the 2nd Amendment?

Answer: Never. Like most liberals, they only worry about the civil liberties they like.

is someone trying to take your guns?
I still have mine.

 

[Captain America]

is someone trying to take your guns?
I still have mine.

If they do, I'm sure the ACLU will step in. I don't always agree with their choice of battles but they are a necesary evil to counter balance the forces on the right who would prefer to stomp on our freedoms and turn us into a facist theocracy.

You can't have any yen without some yang.

 

[Goobieman]

is someone trying to take your guns?
I still have mine.

And this means that your right to arms hasnt been infringed, because...?

When the ACLU defends an individual in a 2nd Amndment case, you let me know, and I'll take back my statement.

Else, it stands as written.

 

[Goobieman]

If they do [take your guns], I'm sure the ACLU will step in.

California has confiscated guns.
Where was the ACLU?

And "infringement" starts long before "confiscation".
Where is the ACLU?

I don't always agree with their choice of battles but they are a necesary evil to counter balance the forces on the right who would prefer to stomp on our freedoms and turn us into a facist theocracy

.
And do they counteract the forces onm the left that would do the same?
Of course not - they AGREE with those forces.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

California has confiscated guns.
Where was the ACLU?

link please.
.

And do they counteract the forces onm the left that would do the same?
Of course not - they AGREE with those forces.

What about defense of religious freedom? That counteracts the forces on the left since we are all godless heathens, right?
http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html
comment please.

 

[Goobieman]

link please [to CA gun confiscation].

Several:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=california+sks+confiscation&btnG=Google+Search

And "infringement" starts long before "confiscation".
Where is the ACLU?

What about defense of religious freedom? That counteracts the forces on the left since we are all godless heathens, right?
http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html
comment please.

Straw, man.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Several:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=california+sks+confiscation&btnG=Google+Search

And "infringement" starts long before "confiscation".
Where is the ACLU?


Straw, man.

Sounds like CA has some very confusing laws....
I don't agree with the state's decison on this.

I do think some regulations on gun ownership are smart, however.

And you said that ACLU is working with the left wing--I shiowed you how that isn't necesarily true, to which you replied strawman.

 

[Goobieman]

Sounds like CA has some very confusing laws....
I don't agree with the state's decison on this.
I do think some regulations on gun ownership are smart, however.

"Smart", a subjective term, does not create an exception to the protection from infingement afforded by the 2nd.

I fully agree with any gun control law that meets these two requirements:
- It guarantees criminals will not get guns
- It does not infringe on the right to arms in any way.

And you said that ACLU is working with the left wing--I shiowed you how that isn't necesarily true, to which you replied strawman.

You noted what was in bold? That was the strawman.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

"Smart", a subjective term, does not create an exception to the protection from infingement afforded by the 2nd.

I fully agree with any gun control law that meets these two requirements:
- It guarantees criminals will not get guns
- It does not infringe on the right to arms in any way.


You noted what was in bold? That was the strawman.

bold text/straw mnan noted. So now do you have a comment on the ACLU's defense of relgious freedoms?

Should I be able to own a minigun? A vulcan anti aircraft weapon?
How about an M249 SAW?

 

[Goobieman]

bold text/straw mnan noted. So now do you have a comment on the ACLU's defense of relgious freedoms?

On occasion, the ACLU will surprise people and come down against the most liberal of liberals. Sometimes

But the ACLU has never, ever, sided with an individual in a 2nd Amendment case.

Should I be able to own a minigun? A vulcan anti aircraft weapon?
How about an M249 SAW?

US v Miller defines "arms" as any weapon that bears a "reasonable relationship" to those weapons that would be of effective service in the militia. The M249 would qualify, as would the minigun. The Vulcan is debateable.

 

[vexati0n]

The ACLU is too far left to be the legislature, but then again, it isn't the legislature, it's an advocacy group. They do take a lot of extreme left stands, but they tend always to protect the right to free speech even for people like Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh who are constantly bashing them. The people on the right love to hate the ACLU. It's true that the ACLU hasn't been the strongest advocate of gun ownership, but that's why we have the NRA, which is so rightist it makes me sick.

But these organizations at the extreme ends of the tired left/right political spectrum serve to balance public policy. If groups like the ACLU were more centrist in their approach, it would shift public policy to the right. Just like if the NRA didn't take such a ridiculously rightist approach to protecting gun ownership, public policy may well shift to the left. These organizations understand that compromise is how things get accomplished. If you want to protect a moderate level of free speech and other "leftist" ideals, you have to fight for the most extreme cases. Same with gun ownership and issues on the right.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

On occasion, the ACLU will surprise people and come down against the most liberal of liberals. Sometimes

But the ACLU has never, ever, sided with an individual in a 2nd Amendment case.


US v Miller defines "arms" as any weapon that bears a "reasonable relationship" to those weapons that would be of effective service in the militia. The M249 would qualify, as would the minigun. The Vulcan is debateable.

They take a nuetral stance on the 2nd amendment, according tot heir website.
Honestly though, why would a civilan need a weapon that fires 4000 rounds a minute, much less 750/per minute as the 249 does?
It's just dumb.
Pistols, rifles, shotguns, no problem. Miltary grade weapons, I think civilans should be heavily restricted from owning. Make it a real pain in the ***, with lots of permits, fees, etc.

 

[vexati0n]

They take a nuetral stance on the 2nd amendment, according tot heir website.
Honestly though, why would a civilan need a weapon that fires 4000 rounds a minute, much less 750/per minute as the 249 does?
It's just dumb.
Pistols, rifles, shotguns, no problem. Miltary grade weapons, I think civilans should be heavily restricted from owning. Make it a real pain in the ***, with lots of permits, fees, etc.

I actually believe that any weapons necessary for the removal of a tyrannical government from power should be accessible to common citizens. That includes everything from machine guns to enforced prohibition of monopoly in popular media. Extreme weapons like vulcans and grenade launchers and other high-profile military weapons should be owned by local municipal governments and made accessible in times of public danger or federal oppression.

 

[Goobieman]

They take a nuetral stance on the 2nd amendment, according tot heir website.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. 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.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

That's not "neutral".

Honestly though, why would a civilan need a weapon that fires 4000 rounds a minute, much less 750/per minute as the 249 does?

Ah. "Need" - translated, this means "what a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have".

Miller effectively says that machineguns are "arms".
The 2nd states that the right to "arms" shall not be infringed.
The "need" here is implicit -- else the weapons would not be protected.

And in any case you are ever required to show a "need" when you exercise a right.

Its just dumb

Another subjective term.

Pistols, rifles, shotguns, no problem. Miltary grade weapons, I think civilans should be heavily restricted from owning. Make it a real pain in the ***, with lots of permits, fees, etc.

Tell me how that doest create an infingement on the right to arms, thereby violating the Constitution.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Their stance is that there is no inidividual right to arms, that the right exists only collectively -- that is, only when the state forms militia.
That's not "neutral".

that is how it reads, for sure. I see their point, I guess.
The premise being that state militias caould effectively over run the feds if they had to. Not referring to 'tom smith' taking on the feds.

Ah. "Need" - translated, this means "what a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have".

liberals are often more practical, after all.:doh

Miller effectively says that machineguns are "arms".
The 2nd states that the right to "arms" shall not be infringed.
The "need" here is implicit -- else the weapons would not be protected.

give me a link to miller case.
What other types of arms are included?

Tell me how that doest create an infingement on the right to arms, thereby violating the Constitution.

So does having to register your firearm. no one complians about that because it is practical.

 

[Goobieman]

that is how it reads, for sure. I see their point, I guess.
The premise being that state militias caould effectively over run the feds if they had to. Not referring to 'tom smith' taking on the feds.

And thus, my point.
This is a civil liberty that the ACLU refuses to recognize, much less act to protect. Their position is lock-step with the liberal left.

liberals are often more practical, after all.:doh

As they so happily claim.
Fortunately, a subjective "need" doesnt trump the language of the Constitution.
That is - what you think I "need" doesnt mean much.

give me a link to miller case.
What other types of arms are included?

US v Miller:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174

So does having to register your firearm. no one complians about that because it is practical.

You didnt answer my question.
How does registration, licensing, permits, heavy restrictions, etc, not create an infringement on the right to arms?

 

[vexati0n]

"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."

I doubt the idea was that there should be people with sub-machine guns and rocket launchers running through the streets of American cities.

 

[Goobieman]

"I doubt the idea was that there should be people with sub-machine guns and rocket launchers running through the streets of American cities.

"The idea" was that "The People" (that is, you and me) would always have access to the means necessary to exercise our right to self-defense, both individually and collectively.

The collective exerxice of this right is through the militia. The militia exists to assist and/or resist the standing army when necessary. As such, those that wuold form the miltia -- "The People" (that is, you and me) -- have their right to the weapons necessary for this protected by the 2nd.

You may not think the 2nd protects M16s and M60s, but its impossible to create a sound argument to support that thought.

 

[Kandahar]

The ACLU has sued the government in every state to defend the rights of NAMBLA to orchestrate child molestation.

No, they have defended the rights of NAMBLA to freely assemble and express their political views.

They have taken every state to court to get rid of sex offender registration laws.

I agree with them on this too. If a judge feels that a person will still be a threat to society after they're released, they should be able to require them to register as a sex offender as part of their sentence. But a blanket law covering ALL sex offenders is ridiculous. Once they serve their time, they should be done, unless registration is explicitly part of the sentence.

The way the law is designed, they are encouraged to frivolously file as many lawsuits (at a maximum expense to taxpayers) as they can because the more they file, the more money they make and the more they are likely to eventually win.

God forbid we allow people to challenge the constitutionality of laws.

Their psychotically fringe interpretations of civil liberties are harming this country by aiding child molesters and by frivolously interfering with any and every kind of change Bush has tried to make to for our national security (even the changes Clinton tried to make).

The ACLU has not objective to many of the less intrusive measures to strengthen our national security. And once again, defending NAMBLA's right to freely assemble is not "aiding child molesters."

Our liberal national security policies didn't prevent 9/11.

And what makes you think these new invasive security policies will prevent a similar attack? Less time has elapsed between 9/11 and the present, than between the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11. So you have no way of knowing whether any of these new strategies will prevent any terrorist attacks.

The number of people who knew about 9/11, prior to the attack, was probably less than fifty. The number of people who knew about the Oklahoma City bombing, prior to the attack, was probably less than five. More intrusive measures won't stop terrorist attacks if there aren't many communications to intercept.

The ACLU has opposed every single proposal to change things. If they want things to stay the way they were and they know that the way things were is what allowed 9/11, then aren't they advocating that the U.S. totally keep its guard down for another attack?

"The way things were" - at least in terms of the policies you're advocating - was not what caused 9/11. There were certainly some security measures we could and should take to reduce the likelihood of a similar attack: End our dependence on foreign oil, push for market liberalization in the Middle East instead of democracy, make our airports truly secure, etc. None of those things require draconian security measures that invade the privacy of average Americans.

1) The San Diego Union-Tribune. February 18, 2005, Pg. A-1

"FBI targets pedophilia advocates;
Little-known group promotes `benevolent' sex."

This is referring to NAMBLA, not the ACLU. A very clever attempt to confuse the issue though; you even left enough wiggle-room to claim you meant NAMBLA in the first place.

2) National Review. February 27, 2004,

"No Boy Scouts."

This is an op-ed piece from the National Review, not a news article.

3) The Boston Herald. July 18, 2001, Pg. 028

"ACLU terms NAMBLA suit a 'witch hunt.'"

Well since you decided to just post the titles of articles instead of links, I had to look them up myself. And I can't find this one anywhere.

If I may presume that the rest of the article follows from the title, I see nothing offensive here. The ACLU claims that NAMBLA has the right to freely assemble and express their political views. What's the problem with that?

 

[SixStringHero]

I think that most rational people will agree that the ACLU is a necessary evil.

However, I think they come down on the wrong side of common sense with many cases.

For instance, the sued and forced the Boy Scouts of America because they used the word GOD in their oath on a public park. How the BSOA oath infringes on anybodies rights or discriminates against anyone is beyond me.

Really, I'm not a fan of the ACLU. Also, while I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I don't agree with everything the NRA does either.

 

[Goobieman]

No, they have defended the rights of NAMBLA to freely assemble and express their political views.

Much as they do the KKK. Can't fault them for that.

And what makes you think these new invasive security policies will prevent a similar attack? Less time has elapsed between 9/11 and the present, than between the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11. So you have no way of knowing whether any of these new strategies will prevent any terrorist attacks.

And you have no way of knowing that they won't -- or that they haven't.

Leftists love to argue that any restriction to the right to arms is worth it "if it saves just one life". Odd how that doesnt translate to national security, particularly in the battle against terrorism.

The number of people who knew about 9/11, prior to the attack, was probably less than fifty. The number of people who knew about the Oklahoma City bombing, prior to the attack, was probably less than five. More intrusive measures won't stop terrorist attacks if there aren't many communications to intercept.

You;re assuimg that there arent "many" communications.
And you;re also setting up an argument for a broader search - after all, if there arent 'many' then we need to look at a larger sample to find them.

 

[Kandahar]

I think that most rational people will agree that the ACLU is a necessary evil.

I don't. They are necessary, but not evil.

However, I think they come down on the wrong side of common sense with many cases.

For instance, the sued and forced the Boy Scouts of America because they used the word GOD in their oath on a public park. How the BSOA oath infringes on anybodies rights or discriminates against anyone is beyond me.

The BSOA accepts taxpayer money while pushing a Christian agenda. While I disagree with the ACLU on this particular case, I certainly can understand their argument. Personally I don't think the federal government should be funding ANY groups like the Boy Scouts, regardless of religious affiliation.