The ACLU Supporting Our Rights Again

[ltorlo64]

This is why I have grave concerns with the ACLU. They do not support the Constitution or actual civil rights. They do support subjugating the people, and using government power if to do it if necessary, to their will. Freedom is only important to them as it relates to them and anyone who disagrees with them needs to be silenced.

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/ac...mo-free-speech

[5.56NATO]

Just check out Morris Dees and the lack of practicing what splc preaches, especially in hiring habits, will tell the whole story.

[LAGC]

The ACLU is in a tough spot. They took A LOT of heat after defending those white nationalists at Charlottesville last year.

It wouldn't have been such a big deal if the rally hadn't turned violent -- that white nationalist who rammed his car into that crowd of peaceful protesters, killing one and maiming several others, pretty much left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

I'm kind of torn, myself. I just re-upped my membership in March, but just a couple days ago they sent me a "Membership Renewal Notice" in the mail asking for $500, even though I should already be good for another year. Pretty shady fundraising tactics.

I know they've been pretty lackluster when it comes to defending the Second Amendment, only getting involved when gun-owners' other civil rights are at stake, like their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure -- but they do so much good when it comes to the rest of the BOR, that I've been reluctant to just stop supporting them outright.

I dunno. I'm not going to send them any more more money this year. If they drop me from their membership rolls because of it, so be it.

[jet3534]

The ACLU is in a tough spot. They took A LOT of heat after defending those white nationalists at Charlottesville last year.

It wouldn't have been such a big deal if the rally hadn't turned violent -- that white nationalist who rammed his car into that crowd of peaceful protesters, killing one and maiming several others, pretty much left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

I'm kind of torn, myself. I just re-upped my membership in March, but just a couple days ago they sent me a "Membership Renewal Notice" in the mail asking for $500, even though I should already be good for another year. Pretty shady fundraising tactics.

I know they've been pretty lackluster when it comes to defending the Second Amendment, only getting involved when gun-owners' other civil rights are at stake, like their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure -- but they do so much good when it comes to the rest of the BOR, that I've been reluctant to just stop supporting them outright.

I dunno. I'm not going to send them any more more money this year. If they drop me from their membership rolls because of it, so be it.

IMHO you would be better served donating to the Rutherford Institute
https://www.rutherford.org/publicati...on_to_violence

[LAGC]

IMHO you would be better served donating to the Rutherford Institute
https://www.rutherford.org/publicati...on_to_violence

Thanks, I'll check them out.

[jet3534]

Thanks, I'll check them out.

Here is some better information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_Institute

[ltorlo64]

The Second Amendment is a civil right. That they won't defend it shows their true colors. As I stated, they want to subjugate those who do not believe as they do using government force. That is the exact opposite of defending civil liberties. The only tough spot they are in is in their unmasking as not really being about liberty, unless it is liberty that is useful to them.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

The Second Amendment is a civil right. That they won't defend it shows their true colors. As I stated, they want to subjugate those who do not believe as they do using government force. That is the exact opposite of defending civil liberties. The only tough spot they are in is in their unmasking as not really being about liberty, unless it is liberty that is useful to them.

When I contacted them many years ago about not defending the 2nd amendment and the funds they are missing out on, they said there is no individual right, then Heller and McDonald came out, they still didn't change their position, proof positive they are not for Constitutional rights only destroying from within using the pretext of defending civil rights.

[alismith]

When I contacted them many years ago about not defending the 2nd amendment and the funds they are missing out on, they said there is no individual right, then Heller and McDonald came out, they still didn't change their position, proof positive they are not for Constitutional rights only destroying from within using the pretext of defending civil rights.

Not surprising since they are a liberal, Communist organization.

[LAGC]

As I stated, they want to subjugate those who do not believe as they do using government force.

Them being neutral on the Second hardly counts as "wanting to subjugate" anyone -- they aren't advocates for gun control, by any means. They simply take a neutral stance and choose to focus their priorities elsewhere, figuring we already have the NRA around to defend the Second.

They still do lots of excellent work defending the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, which is why I'm reluctant to just throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree it would be ideal if they did fight for the Second Amendment as fiercely as they do for the rest of the Bill of Rights, then the NRA could get back to sportsmanship training and quit having to play civil litigator and political lobbyist, which was never its original mission.

[ltorlo64]

Them being neutral on the Second hardly counts as "wanting to subjugate" anyone -- they aren't advocates for gun control, by any means. They simply take a neutral stance and choose to focus their priorities elsewhere, figuring we already have the NRA around to defend the Second.

The ACLU does not take a neutral stand on the Second Amendment. By not defending it they are showing that they do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Additionally, their stated position is that Second Amendment is not an individual right, only applies to militias and maintaining police, and that legal restrictions on firearm ownership should be allowed. In advocating for the removal of the citizens right to self defense they support subjugation of the populace by the state.

[LAGC]

The ACLU does not take a neutral stand on the Second Amendment. By not defending it they are showing that they do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Additionally, their stated position is that Second Amendment is not an individual right, only applies to militias and maintaining police, and that legal restrictions on firearm ownership should be allowed. In advocating for the removal of the citizens right to self defense they support subjugation of the populace by the state.

It's no different than the NRA claiming to be a civil rights organization and ONLY defending the Second Amendment, while ignoring the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU and NRA compliment each other, they aren't at odds with each other. And have actually worked together in several instances where gun-owners' other civil rights were at stake.

If there's ever a door-to-door government gun grab, you're going to want the ACLU on your side.

[alismith]

It's no different than the NRA claiming to be a civil rights organization and ONLY defending the Second Amendment, while ignoring the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU and NRA compliment each other, they aren't at odds with each other. And have actually worked together in several instances where gun-owners' other civil rights were at stake.

If there's ever a door-to-door government gun grab, you're going to want the ACLU on your side.

Why would I "want" the very agency, that removed my right to defend myself, to come to my aid? That's like asking the Politburo to save me from Stalin. Or, asking Satan to grant me good luck.

The ACLU is a communist organization posing as a "civil rights" institution. It's run by card-carrying Liberals who want to "fundamentally change the US." And, they're doing a pretty good job, too.

[ltorlo64]

It's no different than the NRA claiming to be a civil rights organization and ONLY defending the Second Amendment, while ignoring the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Actually it is quite different, and it is identified in the name. The National RIFLE Association identifies what it is concerned with right in the name. The American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union does the same thing and then picks and chooses which civil liberties to support, the most basic of all rights, that of self-defense is not among those it supports.

If there's ever a door-to-door government gun grab, you're going to want the ACLU on your side.

They were non-existent after the door-to-door gun grabbing of Katrina. They think that removing rights without due process (if you are on the No-Fly list you can't buy or own firearms) is acceptable. Nope, they would not be on my side because they are not about civil liberties. They are about using the government to control those who don't agree with them and will not follow them.

[LAGC]

They were non-existent after the door-to-door gun grabbing of Katrina.

ACLU challenges post-Katrina arrest

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16795678/n...atrina-arrest/

And that was only one of many cases the ACLU got involved in, gun-owners being arrested during Katrina.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

It's no different than the NRA claiming to be a civil rights organization and ONLY defending the Second Amendment, while ignoring the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU and NRA compliment each other, they aren't at odds with each other. And have actually worked together in several instances where gun-owners' other civil rights were at stake.

If there's ever a door-to-door government gun grab, you're going to want the ACLU on your side.

The NRA and other groups like the GOA and JPFO and Second Amendment foundation don't just defend the 2nd, they defend all of our rights, including the 1rst, and 4th most importantly among others.

[ltorlo64]

The NRA and other groups like the GOA and JPFO and Second Amendment foundation don't just defend the 2nd, they defend all of our rights, including the 1rst, and 4th most importantly among others.

I was thinking the same thing this morning. The NRA is a great example of one right supports them all. When you get to the point, like the ACLU does, where a right is in conflict with another right, one of them is not really a right.

[ltorlo64]

ACLU challenges post-Katrina arrest

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16795678/n...atrina-arrest/

And that was only one of many cases the ACLU got involved in, gun-owners being arrested during Katrina.

You should actually read the article. The defense of the man by the ACLU had nothing to do with the 2A as he was arrested for suspected looting and drugs. He had a BB gun, which might have helped get him attention but that was not why he was arrested and was not used in the ACLU defense.


Where was the ACLU in trying to recover the firearms that were illegally and unconstitutionally confiscated?

[alismith]

You should actually read the article. The defense of the man by the ACLU had nothing to do with the 2A as he was arrested for suspected looting and drugs. He had a BB gun, which might have helped get him attention but that was not why he was arrested and was not used in the ACLU defense.


Where was the ACLU in trying to recover the firearms that were illegally and unconstitutionally confiscated?

Ignoring it because it doesn't fit their communist agenda.

[LAGC]

You should actually read the article. The defense of the man by the ACLU had nothing to do with the 2A as he was arrested for suspected looting and drugs.

Most of those gun-owners who had their arms seized by local law enforcement during the aftermath of Katrina weren't arrested just because they were carrying.

They were arrested because they ignored the mandatory evacuation orders and were staying behind in restricted areas, even if it was their own homes.

So, many of them were falsely charged with suspected "looting" and trespassing-related charges and their firearms seized as a consequence.

Many of those illegal arrests were challenged though, even if it took several months of languishing in jail, and most of those people eventually got their property back.

The key was proving the illegal arrests in court, the lack of due process and unlawful search and seizures, which the ACLU was an integral part of.