My ongoing discussion with the ACLU regarding guns

[Waywatcher]

My opening:

Subject: Bill of Rights inconsistencies

You do an admirable job protecting the Rights of the People. Why, in the Bill of Rights when using the term, "The People" refer to an indivdual right in every Amendment except the Second?

When you recognize that all 10 amendments, not just 9, are "Rights of The People" (meaning individual rights) you will have my support, until then I "remain neutral" about the ACLU, as you "remain neutral about gun control"

Their response:

Dear (Waywatcher),

Thank you for the question about the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment. 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. The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

My rebuttal:

I am not only I disagreement with your statement, but it is flat out preposterous. The notion that registering guns is akin to registering cars is ludicrous. Heres why:

There is no Amendment in the Constitution reading: "The right of the people to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed."

There is however an Amendment stating "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Would you support 'free speech' licensing and registration?

I reiterate, when you recognize that all 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights enumerate inalieanble rights of the people, you will have my support and membership.

I appreciate any input, but keep in mind I am trying to be civil. (I'm taking the high road.)

 

[ChristopherG]

Good luck--and I'm not being snide. I would love to see the ACLU take up gun rights, which are properly and classically a 'liberal' tenet, so clearly in their domain. They are generally advocates of freedom, and that's a good thing for everyone.

Their argument about vehicle registration is not a very good one. A better one (from their current perspective) would be that, while freedom of speech IS guaranteed by the bill of rights, it was not intended as and has never been interpreted as an ABSOLUTE freedom. There are lots of things you can't say in various contexts ('fire!' being probably the most common example). This freedom, while protected, still functions within the context of the whole document with its stated purposes (e.g., to ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare), which at some times and in some cases requires the restriction of even this recognized and guaranteed right. In the same way, the freedom to keep and bear arms must at times be subject to various restrictions and regulations.

So, you arrive at their conclusion by a different route: it's not and never has been a question of whether or not to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms, but a question of how much.

 

[Waywatcher]

Thank you for your input.

Registering and licensing guns is definitely an 'infringement', and is not necesary or even a benefit to "domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare". A simple look at crime statistics in locales with and without registration quickly proves there is no correlation. Also, for example Canada's gun registry has never solved a single crime, at the cost of billions of dollars.

That would be my response.

 

[Geronimo45]

I think their position on the gun issue has more to do with politics than anything else. Just a guess, but the ACLU seems to usually be on the side of nutty leftists in a lot of court cases - so I'm surmising here that they are leftists, generally speaking. As leftists, they like leftist stuff that gets them press. Gun rights are more of an issue for right wingers. Therefore, since I 'spect that they get a nice chunk of change from leftist groups, they don't support right-wingerish issues too often for fear of losing said chunk of change.
If they'd opt to support gun rights, it would help 'em shed the "Atheist, god-hating, blasphemous commie pervert" image, I reckon.

 

[ChristopherG]

I don't think you want to try to argue gun facts or gun-control facts with the ACLU--such as whether a specific restriction (like registration) is effective or not; it's the kind of thing they can just refer to experts (which they will admit they are not).

What they need to be pushed on is the inconsistency in their treatment of amendments 1 & 2. They obviously presume that any speech-act (including things which do not obviously qualify as 'speech') is or should be protected as 'free speech'; i.e., they operate with a very strong presumption of freedom in the case of speech, and accept restrictions of that freedom in as few cases as possible, and even then often under protest.

Why are they not as passionate about the right to keep and bear arms? How can they be 'neutral' about a freedom whose guarantee is adjacent to and just as clearly spelled out as the freedom which is their raison d'etre?

And they will answer: it's not as clearly spelled out. The courts have generally/usually ruled that the militia clause means the right is reserved to the States, not to individuals--and if that's right, there is no individual right there to protect. I think when they say they're 'neutral' on the issue, it ultimately boils down to this: they are not presuming that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms in the absence of a clear (supreme) court ruling that there is. If that ruling happened, then their position would either have to change, or it would become really, glaringly inconsistent.

 

[Waywatcher]

What they need to be pushed on is the inconsistency in their treatment of amendments 1 & 2.

Good idea, and if the debate takes this turn I will use it.

 

[cwmcgu2]

I have always argued that a merger of the NRA and ACLU would result in a bi-partisan group that would stand for the Constitution of the United States in it's entirety. But I raised this discussion on another forum I frequent and a member added some very insightful points about the ACLU's darker foundation... and he cited his sources!

From http://www.gunforums.com

The real goal of the ACLU is to diminish the constitutional rights of American citizens. The ACLU founder and executive director from 1920 to 1950, Roger Baldwin, described the Soviet Union as a "great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world." He wanted to bring socialism to America, but he knew that to be effective, he had to disguise and mask this goal in terms of individual rights.

He wrote: "Do steer away from making it look like a socialist enterprise. We want to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions." (Quoted in William A. Donahue, Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU - New Brunswick, NJ: Transition Publishers, 1944, pp.6-7)

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." -- Roger Baldwin, leftist, anarchist, and Communist, was born in Wellesley MA and co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

 

[Bubbles]

An ACLU attorney once told me that IF the USSC rules that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and that right is incorporated under the 14th amendment, then the ACLU will fight for it. Until then, nada.

 

[jeep-2]

Dear (Waywatcher),

Thank you for the question about the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment. 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. The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

I don't understand how some people can compare registering cars to registering guns. I don't know much about history, but i'm sure there were no cars around when the Constitution was wrote and there is nothing in the Constitution about the people shall have the right to own and drive cars. one is a right and one is a privilage. apples and oranges.

 

[dfaugh]

Another problem I seem to see with the ACLU, is that (besides not supporting the 2nd), even when the DO enter the fray, its only in cases where:

A) they get lots of pulicity, preferably on a regional or national scale
B) they're pretty confident of winning

I think the THEORY of a ACLU-like organization is outstanding, but they're failing the mission. Maybe its time to start a more "serious" organization to protect our rights/liberties (and not just the 2nd).

 

[SMLE]

It is interesting to me how some of these so-called "civil libertarians" will howl about how the government can not be trusted to safe guard our rights but how only the government can be trusted to have guns.

 

[ozwyn]

The cars anaolgy is beyong foolish, its irresponsible.

Remind them that to allow registration of one amendment on the bill of rights where the "of the people" language is used is to in fact open the door to allow ALL such amendments to be so restricted.

It is not about how he feels about guns, it is how he feels about registration and regulation of the bill of rights. Allowing firearms to be restricted means he is setting a precedent for the entire bill of rights to be compromised.

Firearms rights are assaulted because they have the least defense, if the ACLU actually cares about civil liberties they need to look at the entire bill of rights.

Not defending the 2nd amendment is the loophole they need to fix, or else precendents they allow to occur will be used on the issues more near and dear to their hearts. (like supporting pedophiles, racists with open policies of genocide, etc)

 

[TexasRifleman]

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control.

Notice they were careful to mention this as far as national goes.
Maybe it is policy to leave it up to the groups in each state? Dunno.

The state ACLU here in Texas is VERY pro 2A and pro gun.

They have done a lot of work with the Texas State Rifle Association on things over the years and I have no problem sending them a donation when I can.

It's a real shame the national organization doesn't "get it".

 

[svtruth]

A member of both

NRA and ACLU. My sense is that the ACLU's base is generally anti-gun so they take the "follow the SCOTUS" position.
But is the court ever affirms that the 2A guarantees an individual right, they are painted into a corner.

 

[Young gun]

My answer: I belong to the ACLU and NRA

Beware I'm a gun toting liberal. I can defend my liberties.

Also there are MANY state and local civil liberites groups, the ones in your area may fight for our 2A rights. If they do join'em and join the a regional or state 2a lobby gruop. (I live in NY so here its a not looking too goo)

Let's start attacking on two fronts.

 

[IdahoFarmer]

Would you support 'free speech' licensing and registration?

This is a great analogy. No response from them yet?

Farmer

 

[MD_Willington]

What's that saying...

Wrestling with a pig in mud...

The only way an ACLU member would change their mind about gun control is if they were all lined up in front of a very large pit... something akin to what happened in WWII... even them some would probably just stand there and wait to get whacked...

 

[Taurus 66]

I am not only I disagreement with your statement, but it is flat out preposterous. The notion that registering guns is akin to registering cars is ludicrous. Heres why:

There is no Amendment in the Constitution reading: "The right of the people to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed."

There is however an Amendment stating "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Would you support 'free speech' licensing and registration?

I reiterate, when you recognize that all 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights enumerate inalieanble rights of the people, you will have my support and membership.

Let us know when you get a response to your rebuttal. Word has it if you challenge the ACLU and make really good points, they simply won't reply back to you. You'd be known as "Non-conformist" and not worth their time.

 

[bogie]

1) What is the membership of the ACLU?

2) How many folks show up for their annual conferences?

3) How many folks show up for a typical gun show?

Join the ACLU, and go to one of their conferences. Make yourself heard.

Take them over from within.

 

[velojym]

The only way an ACLU member would change their mind about gun control is if they were all lined up in front of a very large pit... something akin to what happened in WWII... even them some would probably just stand there and wait to get whacked...

Much as they love to whine and bitch, they studiously avoid the rights which give liberty its teeth. I suspect these people would march into the ovens without much more than a whimper.

 

[Sam Adams]

We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership.

To be consistent, the ACLU should therefore support the removal of anyone's tongue who is thought to be capable of uttering a slanderous statement, or of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when, in fact, there is no fire.

Disgusting - "reasonable regulation" is a code phrase for "we'll let you have a gun if we feel like it" and is the worst kind of pre-empting of a right without a reasonable fear of someone being imminently harmed.

 

[vynx]

You should have told them you don't need to register cars that you collect and keep in a barn on your property the reg. is for driving on PUBLIC roads and is a way to raise money for policticians to waste (originally to maintain roadways) - there is no national car ban or reg. - no limit on car parts or engine size or MPG or horsepower, if you could carry your car inyour pocket no reg. (dumb but so are gun laws).

I'll pay a tax on my gun IF they use the taxes to build and maintain shooting ranges. Just follow the same percentage as spent on roadways and bridges.

 

[BobCav]

Cars cannot be used in self defense, preserving life. They also cannot be used to force the government to a redress of grievances in the 1A, or be taken up to overthrow a tyrannous government that fails to redress.

"Fix it by the First, or we'll fix it by the Second" - BobCav

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Waywatcher --

I am 100% in agreement with your position. The intellectual diletantes (sp?) at the ACLU clearly do not wish to acknowledge that "resonable restriction" is synonymous with "infringement." Until they can wrap their collective minds around that fundamental reality, they are the enemy.

 

[Mannlicher]

you are wasting your time, and only providing amusement for the ACLU. Their goal is to destroy America. They are a Communist organization, founded by a Communist, who stated as his goal, the destruction of our Country.