# ACLU, the SCotUS, and the 2nd **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408 "2004-12-17T20:10:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/21 "2004-12-17T22:00:10Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Maybe **Bricker** simply believes that civil rights are one of them crazy-ass libural ideas. 😉 Maybe the discussion in a GD thread should focus on the merits of ideas, rather than speculations about the beliefs of the participants. Your comment amounts to an _ad hominem_ attack: the reader is invited to discopunt my argument because of your attack on me, not your attack on a particular argument of mine. This is a logical fallacy. As it happens, there are some claimed “rights” that are, in my view, crazy-ass liberal ideas, and we’ve discussed many of them in other threads. In this thread, I am the one suggesting the existence of an individual civil right, and my opponents are denying its existence. Now, perhaps I misread your comment, and you are in fact agreeing with me - sarcastically characterizing the civil right of gun ownership as a “crazy-ass liberal idea” as a means of showing your support for the individual civil right of gun ownership. If so, I believe you could have phrased your comment more cogently, but I am happy, if a bit surprised, to have your support. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/22 "2004-12-17T22:00:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t want virtual child pornography either. Shall we take a more restrictive view of the First Amendment? We very well might. A more restrictive view, for instance, might hold that the Big One protects political speech specificly, and not speech in general. I don’t think such a position would do great violence to the 1st Amend., since it protects the essential right, free political speech. I have great sympathy for a position of complete and unhindered free speech, the right to shout “Theater!” in a crowded fire, but don’t necessarily require the 1st Amendment to support that. As to “virtual” child porn, if there are no actual children involved, i.e., it is computer generated, it would fall in the area of crimes without victims, that is to say, way down the list. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/23 "2004-12-17T22:04:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > We very well might. A more restrictive view, for instance, might hold that the Big One protects political speech specificly, and not speech in general. I don’t think such a position would do great violence to the 1st Amend., since it protects the essential right, free political speech. > > I have great sympathy for a position of complete and unhindered free speech, the right to shout “Theater!” in a crowded fire, but don’t necessarily require the 1st Amendment to support that. > > As to “virtual” child porn, if there are no actual children involved, i.e., it is computer generated, it would fall in the area of crimes without victims, that is to say, way down the list. Now that’s consistent. I don’t agree that’s the direction to go, but I can hardly fault you for a completely consistent approach to the thing. I will say that the general “liberal” position is not in sync with what you espouse here, though. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/24 "2004-12-17T22:09:45Z")
Of course not. I’m a radical. Not a liberal. On the conservative wing of the extreme left, we regard liberals as wishy-washy namby-pambys. Not the first to go to the Wall come the Revolution. But definitely eligible for the Jane Fonda Re-Education and Aerobic Workout Camp. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/25 "2004-12-17T22:17:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Of course not. I’m a radical. Not a liberal. On the conservative wing of the extreme left, we regard liberals as wishy-washy namby-pambys. Not the first to go to the Wall come the Revolution. But definitely eligible for the Jane Fonda Re-Education and Aerobic Workout Camp. Good lesson for me: try not to buttonhole people into positions. I know I shouldn’t, but I do. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/26 "2004-12-17T22:19:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe the discussion in a GD thread should focus on the merits of ideas, rather than speculations about the beliefs of the participants. Your comment amounts to an _ad hominem_ attack: the reader is invited to discopunt my argument because of your attack on me, not your attack on a particular argument of mine. . That’s _rich_, considering your first “contribution” to this thread was to dismiss the ACLU as “liberal”. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/27 "2004-12-17T22:55:16Z")
one would hope the aclu, being a union that aims to protect civil liberties, would be liberal at least regarding individual rights. the term “liberal” is pretty loaded, though, and i don’t think the aclu does a whole lot of promotion for national healthcare, for instance. by way of adding to the debate: many people believe those who interpret the second amendment as allowing restrictions on individual firearm ownership because of its conditional nature err by interpreting that part of the constitution strictly while interpreting other parts, such as the first amendment, liberally. i ask, then, why is the second amendment so strictly worded, when other amendments are not, if that was not its aim? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/28 "2004-12-17T23:47:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. I acknowledge that my statement was not technically correct. Each and every member or contributor to the ACLU is not a political liberal. However, as an entity, the ACLU is liberal. As a card carrying member of the ACLU (and I wish I had more opportunities to mention this in everyday conversation 😛 ), I have to say it’s a predominately liberal organization. Not surprising. I don’t believe conservatives, in general, care as much about civil rigts as liberals do. As long as the government stays away from their money and their guns, other peoples liberties are a distant concern. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/29 "2004-12-18T00:08:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe the discussion in a GD thread should focus on the merits of ideas, rather than speculations about the beliefs of the participants. Your comment amounts to an _ad hominem_ attack: the reader is invited to discopunt my argument because of your attack on me, not your attack on a particular argument of mine. What attack? You called the ACLU “liberal,” some folks called you on it, and I suggested a possible explaination why you did so. Just tryin’ to be helpful, you know, what with me being a bleedin’ heart and all. 🙂 > [@Blalron](#): > > I don’t believe conservatives, in general, care as much about civil rigts as liberals do. As long as the government stays away from their money and their guns, other peoples liberties are a distant concern. Don’t forget God. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/30 "2004-12-18T00:14:56Z")
But the ACLU _does_ seek to protect the civil rights of all points of the political spectrum. They fought for and won the right for neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois. They have gone to court in support of religious rights. Saying that the ACLU is a “liberal” organization is an insult to conservatives who value Constitutional rights. Not everyone in the ACLU agrees about the 2nd Amendment. _Bricker_, you probably draw the line somewhere yourself. Does the 2nd Amendment mean that individual citizens have the right to own nuclear arms? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/31 "2004-12-18T15:28:14Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > But the ACLU _does_ seek to protect the civil rights of all points of the political spectrum. They fought for and won the right for neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois. They have gone to court in support of religious rights. > > Saying that the ACLU is a “liberal” organization is an insult to conservatives who value Constitutional rights. Good lord. Are you seriously contending that it is inaccurate to characterize the ACLU as a generally liberal organization? Frankly, that claim refutes itself; it requires no serious rebuttal by me. > [@](#): > > Not everyone in the ACLU agrees about the 2nd Amendment. _Bricker_, you probably draw the line somewhere yourself. Does the 2nd Amendment mean that individual citizens have the right to own nuclear arms? No. I have no trouble in parsing “arms” as “personal arms.” The right is an individual, personal right. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/32 "2004-12-18T15:38:16Z")
Try this on for size: Liberals and Libertarians, as groups, tend to be more concerned and outspoken about the protection of individual rights than are some elements of the fragmented Conservative bloc. They also tend to take a much broader view of what constitutes a “right” than most Conservatives. (See dozens of threads arguing _Living Constitution v. Strict Construction_.) The ACLU, _as a corporate body_, tends to espouse the Liberal standard of what constitutes a right, and the importance of defending them. Thus far, **Bricker** is on target. Nonetheless, many Conservatives of varying stripes **also** feel strongly about the defense of individual rights – and in fact some of them believe that many Liberal shibboleths are in fact deprivatory of rights which **they** cherish. They tend to take varying stances with regard to the ACLU – those strongly in favor of rights-defense being supportive of it and trying to reform its perspective to incorporate their views as well, and those which find Liberalism to advocate depriving of rights they value opposing the ACLU as a largely-liberal group. Me, I’m a pragmatic libertarian with a sense that there is a corporate social responsibility, which makes me generally supportive of Liberal principles. And I hold to a not-quite-absolutist view with regard to the entire Constitutional complexus of guarantees of rights. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/33 "2004-12-18T15:44:51Z")
Poly, your presence is requested [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=291525) If you’d be so kind. Your wisdom could certainly help out on the social program side of things. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/34 "2004-12-18T16:01:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Also mentioned on the page above, why does the SCotUS refuse to give cert. to 2nd amendment cases? Because it was settled long ago. See United States v Cruikshank and United States v Miller. You might as well ask why the Court doesn’t revisit abortion rights. > [@](#): > > And while it is a common argument against the 2nd amendment, even Cecil himself thinks it is pretty bogus. Newsflash people: Cecil is human. And on the 2nd Amendment, he is dead wrong. What part of US v Miller didn’t you get? From [speakout.com](http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/5237-1.html) > [@](#): > > Another way is to examine cases that came before the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court. These were reviewed by no less an authority than Erwin N. Griswold, former solicitor general in the Nixon administration and former dean of Harvard Law School. He concluded: “Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of fire-arms on Second Amendment grounds. Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun [control] laws is perhaps the most well settled proposition in American constitutional law. Yet the incantation of this phantom right continues to pervade congressional debate.” > [@](#): > > Well, there already is a huge organization with crud loads of cash dedicated to the preservation of the most liberal possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the NRA. No, the NRA is dedicated to _the Second Half_ of the Second Amendment only. The NRA does not quote the first half since it is contrary to their agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/35 "2004-12-18T18:57:03Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Because it was settled long ago. See United States v Cruikshank and United States v Miller. You might as well ask why the Court doesn’t revisit abortion rights. Why doesn’t the Court revisit _Bowers v. Hardwick_? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/36 "2004-12-18T19:06:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why doesn’t the Court revisit _Bowers v. Hardwick_? Well, [they did.](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/37 "2004-12-18T19:23:56Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Well, [they did.](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf) Kinda my point there, Bob. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/38 "2004-12-18T19:38:16Z")
Does the OP see the 2nd ammendment as allowing any American to keep any kind of arms (cannons, RPGs, 5 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, antrhax spores, nuclear bombs)? If not, then aren’t you opposed to a liberal interpretation of the 2nd ammendment and therefore being hypocritical in calling the ACLU hypocritical? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/39 "2004-12-18T21:38:55Z")
The right to keep and bear _arms_ as historically understood has _always_ been interpreted to mean individual arms; rifles, shotguns and pistols. These are held, and operated, by one person. They are meant to be used against other people. Machineguns, Rocket Launchers, Grenades, Grenade Launchers, and Weapons of Mass Destruction are meant to be used as area-denial weapons, area-effect weapons, anti-vehicle weapons, and anti-material weapons. Thus, they are ordnance and not “arms.” Arm_aments_ /= Arms. The right to keep and bear arms has never had anything to do with keeping and bearing _arm_ament_s_, I don’t care how many letters they have in common. So please, for the Love of OG, Sweet Zombie Jesus, and Santa, _stop_ with the Straw Man arguments about the NRA advocating the right to keep and bear Nuclear Missiles and Anthrax. Admittedly, the definitions begin to get hazy when you add in modern arms such a fully-automatic sub-machineguns, and assault rifles. The straight reading of _Miller_ seems to imply that, since those arms _are_ of a type in common use by military and police forces, that they are indeed protected by the 2nd. Amendment, and thus quite legal for any _qualifying_ citizen to keep and bear at their discretion for purposes of being part of a ready, well-regulated militia. But since the United States no longer relies upon the ordinary citizen militia, there is nothing wrong with administrative regulations prohibiting their ownership to the general population, without a certain qualifying approval process. Which is what we had for the longest time, until the ATF banned the import and manufacture of any additonal fully-automatic weapons, and froze the registry. Which now goes against the plain reading of Miller and the 2nd. Amendment. **Bob:** re-read Miller. The court simpy stated that there was no evidence that a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches bore any semblance to the sort of ordinary arms used by a well-regulated militia, and thus was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. The court found this way because: A. It was the Government’s argument; B. The Defendant (Miller and his attorney) didn’t show up to argue otherwise. Jack Miller and Frank Layton both disappeared from the face of the earth after their aquital in the District Court in Arkansas. They were probably using aliases anyway. Their lawyer never argued the case any higher than the District Court aquital; he wasn’t paid to. So you had a gun control happy federal government/political administration arguing a case before a court with zero defense. Sadly, I am told that this is actually quite common. There is more than ample documentary evidence to show that short-barreled shotguns were and _are_ indeed quite commom in military, para-military and civilian law enforcement use. And finally, **Bob** , you are just flat-out wrong about what the NRA has on its websites. The 2nd. Amendment is **not** quoted _at all_ on their [Home](http://www.nra.org/) page, or on their [PVF](http://www.nrapvf.org/) page, or on their [NRA News](http://www.nranews.com/nra.htmland) page, or on their [Headquarters](http://www.nrahq.org/Default.asp) page, or on their [Free Hunters](http://www.freehunters.org/) page. It is only quoted _fully_ on the [ILA](http://www.nraila.org/) page. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/40 "2004-12-18T21:41:37Z")
Hopefully there will be no need for the SCOTUS to become involved. > [@](#): > > _The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias._ [Department of Justice](http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408.md?page=3)