I was a strong supporter for a while. During the darkest years of the last Bush administration I think they fought a valiant fight to keep a lot of our constitutional rights from being taken away - sometimes. When they work to keep speech free or to uphold our right to trial, for example, I think they do an invaluable job. Our rights would be in tatters without them. That said, I think they’ve gone off the rails somewhat, so much so that I stopped sending them money.
First, they have embraced a number of social issues that I don’t think really fall within the area of the bill of rights. While I support most of those issues, they mostly fall in the “liberal” category IMO. For example, while the Bush folks were busy pushing the Patriot act (ugh, don’t get me started), the ACLU seemed fixated on same-sex marriage and abortion rights. I support those issues but I’m not convinced yet that those are Bill of Rights issues that the ACLU needs to focus on - there are some important threats to our actual basic rights.
Secondly, they started driving me crazy with all the solicitations, I would guess I got about 4 or 5 things in the mail from them each week. When I got three mailings from them in one day (yes, three) I just gave up. Seriously, do the math, they were probably sending me over 200 letters a year, each one begging for more money!
Within the limits described in Heller, yes. There is now a SCOTUS-created right to bear arms for hunting and security, even though that has jack to do with well-regulated militias. Even that does not endorse your cherished preference for a blanket, unlimited right, however, no matter how much “relish” you choose to pour on it.
All in all, I support the ACLU. Haven’t been a member in awhile…it just slipped away during a financial rough patch and I never thought of them since then…hmmmmm.
However, it was extremely tough. As Todderbob said, my first exposure to the ACLU was them trying to discriminate against me getting a job soley because I was a white, young male.
Now, I know what you are thinking…but hold on…they were trying to discriminate against ME because I was a white young male…I was in competition for a faculty position and the ACLU challenged me as a the one picked because the other guy was black. They tried to get me unhired and the other guy hired.
It is really tough to form a positive opinion about an organization with which that is your first experience!
I also met members of the ACLU and their attitudes/beliefs repulsed me. They believed:
That is a man and woman are equally capable of doing a job, that the woman should be hired over the man [pro-discrimination! - and if you think it isn’t then I should be able to switch man and woman around with no change of heart from you]
Please provide a quote from me that I have ever endorsed a “blanket, unlimited right.” Or withdraw the statement. You cannot falsely attribute words or positions to people that they do not subscribe to, and have not said.
The word for that is “lying.”
I can provide several links to threads in which I have endorsed, in theory, the licensing of gun owners and the registration of firearms. I have expressed serious reservations about the implementaion of such measures, due to the political nature of gun-hostile politicians and states co-opting such measures to enact defacto bans.
In fact here’s one such thread. In the second post in the thread, I lay out what I think could be considered reasonable restrictions on firearm ownerships.
I assume (perhaps foolishly) for the sake of argument that the “other side” would negotiate and behave (in a regulatory sense) in good faith.
Within what passes for logic and grammar in your mind, that’s a given.
Several other challenges to PATRIOT Act provisions by the ACLU are detailed in their recent report on the Act and its impacts.
I think perhaps your view of the ACLU’s priorities may be a bit skewed by media reporting trends. Challenging the government’s intrusive use of library records may not be as sexy from a reporter’s standpoint as submitting a brief in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, but that doesn’t mean that the ACLU doesn’t consider it a top issue.
Not only will Heller not be reversed, but I would bet you a good bit of money that it will be incorporated next year. That would leave nothing but repeal, and that won’t ever happen. I’d bet you an even more considerable sum that there will never, ever be a time where a majority of the House, 67 Senators, and 38 states vote for repeal of the Second Amendment. As it is, 34 states support incorporation, including California (!)
You’re still not allowed to call him a liar, and that’s stated very clearly in the forum rules. If you’d like me to talk about this with the other mods, I will, but the rules are straightforward. That said:
Yes, you still can’t call another poster a liar here.
I’m not going to weigh in on the merits of anybody’s argument; you can argue with him however you want as long as you don’t insult him. If you want to discuss this further, send me a PM or post in ATMB.
It may not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen in the next 100 years. As the nation becomes more urban, I think the demographics will catch up to the Second Half of the Second Amendment. In 100 years, we’ll think of the notion of individuals owning handguns to be as quaint as snuff boxes and buggy whips are today.
And yet quaint snuff boxes and buggy whips aren’t illegal.
In fact, firearm laws have become increasingly liberalized (in the true sense of the Liberalization, not in the “liberal” overly restrictive sense) in recent years. Despite the (obviously failed AWB) and increase in urbanization and demographic change of the United States.
I wouldn’t mind at all if that were the case - since last I checked ownership of said snuff boxes and buggy whips was legal.
I don’t care how many other people own guns, or whether you care to own them. I own them and I do not want my right (or your unexercised right) to do so infringed.
I’m just saying the tide isn’t going to be in your direction long. Demographics are killing you. The Hispanic population grows, what do Republicans do? Smear the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court. The black population grows, what do Republicans do? Call the president a liar in the House chamber, which is unprecedented. All you’ve done since January is permanently alienate two growing segments of the population. You keep purging from the party anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh. I seriously doubt there will be any more Republican presidents in my lifetime. No more Republican presidents, no more right wing Supreme Court justices. Get rid of Scalito and Uncle Thomas, your Heller ruling doesn’t look so invulnerable.
Ahem, you seem to be under the impression that the only people who are against banning firearms are republicans. They’re not.
And, you seem to think that “you” (as in, me and the rest of us in this thread) are republicans – I can’t speak for anyone else here, but for the most part I consider myself a Democrat, or Independent.
And, for the first bit of Bush’s presidency, people said “We’ll never see another Democratic President! The Democrats are a dead party!”
Yeah, that turned out to be dead on, didn’t it?
So? Heller doesn’t have to be invulnerable. It needs only be the basis for a decision that incorporates the Second Amendment. Has the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, ever taken away an incorporated right? I think you know that the answer is no, and I think you know that once the Second Amendment is incorporated it is rock-solid, so why harp on Heller’s alleged vulnerability?
Anyway, this has now become a gun thread, again. If you want to continue this, we can take it elsewhere, but for my part I’m done hijacking this thread.
