The trouble with this, of course, is that the ACLU is *entirely* wrong on this subject. That page is so riddled with misinformation about the purpose of weapons in a free society it hard to know even where to begin with people who hold these misguided (advocacy of the collective right theory, reasonability of guerilla resistance, which is well proven in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq), ill-informed (the U.S. v. Miller decision doesn't say what they seem to think it does, and in any case, the case was remanded and not retried), and outdated (no mention of Parker v. D.C.) positions.
And, as I said before, payment of membership dues and/or donations to the Foundation create no obligation for the ACLU to spend those monies in ways that are requested by the donor, so giving free rein to these people is futile and counterproductive.
No one with any amount of brains in their head has even suggested that the RKBA should be entirely unlimited (personal possesion of WMD has no valid purpose for the regulation of the militia, for one thing, and no valid purpose for self-defense, for another), so on this matter ("reasonable" gun control), the ACLU *appears* to have a "reasonable" stance, and even explicitly claims a "neutral stance on gun control", but this idea is clearly contradicted when you examine the rest of their points.
If the ACLU ever changes their stance on Amendment II and finally recognizes the *entire* Constitution, then, and only then, will I consider membership and/or donation. But before that happens, they must conclusively demonstrate that they will fight tooth and nail for *all* civil liberties, instead of just the ones with which they feel comfortable.
They could start by supporting Parker, et al, in
Parker, et al, v. District of Columbia...