Poll: are you a member of the ACLU?

[werepossum]

The fact that YOU believe the 2nd amendment defines a personal right to carry firearms doesn't meant that that's what the 2nd amendment means. The ACLU has taken no position on the 2nd amendment in the courts, which pretty much means they think it's an open question.

I like it how right wing a-holes think that their reading of the Constitution is the only correct one, and anyone who disagrees is unprincipled.

I like how left wing a-holes think feel the Founding Fathers enshrined the "right" to bear arms only when government drafts and arms you, and anyone who disagrees is a Neanderthal. Kind of like assuming that the First Amendment means that you have the right to say whatever the government tells you to say, or that Freedom OF Religion actually means Freedom FROM Religion.

 

[werepossum]

So a decision that held for 70 years isn't valid because what might be the most conservative court in history has decided to overturn long held rulings? I believe when much less set in stone rulings occur by liberal judges people like you won't stop ranting about the "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench". The ACLU is currently on the side of a ruling that held for almost 70 years and hasn't yet come to agree with a ruling that has been in place 2 years. So either this ruling will itself be overturned by a later court, or it will stand and the ACLU will come to accept it.

And it doesn't mean that the ACLU wouldn't defend the 2nd Amendment, it means they wouldn't defend it from the same standpoint you happen to have.

The ACLU is still one of the most respectable and non-partisan organizations in this country. Unless you consider civil rights to be too liberal. Which judging from posts in this forum, most conservatives certainly do.

United States v. Miller was silent on whether or not the Second Amendment is a collective right or an individual right. The ruling merely centered on the fact that the gun in question - a shortened double-barreled shotgun - was not a recognized military weapon, and thus the federal government had the right to regulate it. Amusing since the same Act DID regulate weapons that are clearly contemporary military weapons - but then, the case wasn't about whether the NFA violated the Second Amendment, it was about interstate transportation of a regulated weapon where the defense claimed Second Amendment protection. There's a subtle but very important difference. Had United States v. Miller been intended as a ruling that the Second Amendment was a collective right (meaning a right of government), then the ruling would have said that. Of course, that would render the Second Amendment completely meaningless, as the right of government to seize you, arm you, and force you to fight for the government's perceived interests is well established in English (and indeed, all) common law. Armies of the age relied quite heavily on conscription, and the United States Bill of Rights was unique in establishing the right to bear arms as an individual right.

More has certainly been read into the decision over the next seventy years, but United States v. Printz did not in any way overturn United States v. Miller; it merely established that the Second Amendment is an individual right (as are all those rights enumerated within the first nine Amendments) rather than a States right - as should be obvious.

 

[Amused]

The fact that YOU believe the 2nd amendment defines a personal right to carry firearms doesn't meant that that's what the 2nd amendment means. The ACLU has taken no position on the 2nd amendment in the courts, which pretty much means they think it's an open question.

I like it how right wing a-holes think that their reading of the Constitution is the only correct one, and anyone who disagrees is unprincipled.

Bullshit.

Let's ask the men who wrote it, shall we?

The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

And finally, for the dipshits here:

In the previous Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

In fact, here is my challenge:

Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.

You cannot.

Cliffs:

You're full of shit.

 

[Zebo]

I am but nominally. $50 a year tops. Why? Their second amendment stance is complete contrived bullshit.. Amused shows this.. Thier other stances are good especially on 1, 3-8, 12-15.

On balance decent org.

 

[werepossum]

Bullshit.

Let's ask the men who wrote it, shall we?

The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

And finally, for the dipshits here:

In the previous Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

In fact, here is my challenge:

Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.

You cannot.

Cliffs:

You're full of shit.

^^ Well regulated by the State, not well regulated as in efficient and effective. The intent of "well regulated" was to have an effective citizens' army capable of defending the State from enemies domestic and foreign, not a citizens' army effectively controlled by the State to serve the State's purposes. Progressives tend to see "well regulated" and immediately conclude that the intention was to further empower government when in fact the intent was just the opposite, to put a break on government's power. Had the intent been to arm the states to protect against federal hegemony, the Founding Fathers would have authorized the States to form standing armies. Instead, the Founding Fathers established an individual right to bear arms which not only served to protect the States from the federal government and both from foreign enemies, but also served to protect the people from all three.

 

[shira]

Bullshit.

Let's ask the men who wrote it, shall we?

The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

And finally, for the dipshits here:

In the previous Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

In fact, here is my challenge:

Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.

You cannot.

Cliffs:

You're full of shit.

And your argument/evidence is so airtight, so compelling, that the Supreme Court voted 9-0 in D.C. vs Heller that the 2nd Amendment means there's a personal right to bear arms.

Except that - oops - the vote was only 5-4. Somehow 4 SCOTUS justices don't see your compelling evidence the same way you do.

But of course, those 4 votes were by ideologically-driven, activist judges, right? And the majority 5 - who also voted 5-4 in what is widely seen as the most over-reaching, activist decision in decades - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - are the souls of judicial restraint.

If I'm full of shit, you're both full of shit AND a moron.

 

[Amused]

And your argument/evidence is so airtight, so compelling, that the Supreme Court voted 9-0 in D.C. vs Heller that the 2nd Amendment means there's a personal right to bear arms.

Except that - oops - the vote was only 5-4. Somehow 4 SCOTUS justices don't see your compelling evidence the same way you do.

But of course, those 4 votes were by ideologically-driven, activist judges, right? And the majority 5 - who also voted 5-4 in what is widely seen as the most over-reaching, activist decision in decades - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - are the souls of judicial restraint.

If I'm full of shit, you're both full of shit AND a moron.

Um, no.

The dissenting opinion in that case as much as ADMITTED their finding was contrary to original intent, and made the INSANE living document argument that it no longer has to mean that.

There is NO DOUBT their finding was judicial activism driven by ideology. THEY FUCKING ADMITTED IT. It's even MORE obvious in the Chicago case.

The ONLY full of shit moron here is you.

I suggest you read this to see what Steven's and his side of the court was doing:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Scalia called him out on it, and writes a rightfully scathing rebuttal to Steven's dissent.

I'll give you the last bit:

JUSTICE STEVENS’ final reason for rejecting incorporation of the Second Amendment reveals, more clearly than any of the others, the game that is afoot. Assuming that there is a “plausible constitutional basis” for holding that the right to keep and bear arms is incorporated, he asserts that we ought not to do so for prudential reasons. Post, at 47.

Even if we had the authority to withhold rights that are within the Constitution’s command (and we assuredly do not), two of the reasons JUSTICE STEVENS gives fo rabstention show just how much power he would hand to judges. The States’ “right to experiment” with solutions to the problem of gun violence, he says, is at its apex here because “the best solution is far from clear.” Post, at 47– 48 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is true of most serious social problems—whether, for example, “the best solution” for rampant crime is to admit confessions unless they are affirmatively shown to have been coerced, but see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 444–445 (1966), or to permit jurors to impose the death penalty without a requirement that they be free to consider “any relevant mitigating factor,” see Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455
U. S. 104, 112 (1982), which in turn leads to the conclusion that defense counsel has provided inadequate defense if he has not conducted a “reasonable investigation” into potentially mitigating factors, see, e.g., Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 534 (2003), inquiry into which question tends to destroy any prospect of prompt justice, see, e.g., Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U. S. ___ (2009) (per curiam) (reversinggrant of habeas relief for sentencing on a crime committed in 1981). The obviousness of the optimal answer is in the eye of the beholder. The implication of JUSTICE STEVENS’ call for abstention is that if We The Court conclude that They The People’s answers to a problem are silly, we are free to “interven[e],” post, at 47, but if we too are uncertain of the right answer, or merely think the States may be onto something, we can loosen the leash.

A second reason JUSTICE STEVENS says we should abstain is that the States have shown they are “capable” of protecting the right at issue, and if anything have protected it too much. Post, at 49. That reflects an assumption that judges can distinguish between a proper democratic decision to leave things alone (which we should honor), and a case of democratic market failure (which weshould step in to correct). I would not—and no judge should—presume to have that sort of omniscience, which seems to me far more “arrogant,” post, at 41, than confining courts’ focus to our own national heritage.

 

[hal2kilo]

I was a card carrier for one year, but in my area the local spent all their time on LGBT issues. " Not that there's anything wrong with that" he he (some people might get the connection). At the time, GWB was on the rampage with the patriot act and I was already gravely concerned with the demise of the 4th ammendment. I'm very dissappointed in this current administrations continuation of, and support of the patriot act as well.

I do support them whole heartly though and when I get the time, maybe retirement, I might get involved again.

 

[RightIsWrong]

That's my problem, as well. I admire the ACLU's actions in support of free speech and against government endorsement of religion, but they should defend all civil liberties not just a select few.

Their resources are limited and they have chosen to focus on this single issue. Maybe the NRA should focus on something other than guns?

Groups and companies specialize because that is the only way to become SME (Subject matter experts) and to be able to effectively advance a cause whether that be defending free speech, the right to bear arms or increasing the profit margin from selling shitty, Chinese-made crap to the population at a huge markup with your logo stamped on it.

 

[zsdersw]

I was a card carrier for one year, but in my area the local spent all their time on LGBT issues. " Not that there's anything wrong with that" he he (some people might get the connection). At the time, GWB was on the rampage with the patriot act and I was already gravely concerned with the demise of the 4th ammendment. I'm very dissappointed in this current administrations continuation of, and support of the patriot act as well.

I do support them whole heartly though and when I get the time, maybe retirement, I might get involved again.

Ok, Jerry Seinfeld..