Why Does the ACLU only Pick and Choose Rights To Protect?

[Una_Persson]

Is not one of the criticisms of the ACLU that they interpret the term “the people” in the Constitution to mean “the individual person” in every single case except in that of the 2nd Amendment? Thus picking and choosing how they want to interpret such an important definition?

[SPOOFE]

Yeah, I know that there are plenty of people who would very much like to ignore the “well regulated” bit in the 2nd Ammendment, but it is there after all. “Well regulated” pretty much rules out “unlimited right.”

Please try to keep in mind that very few people (including the majority of the NRA) actually believe that there shouldn’t be any restrictions on firearms. The mainstream objection is to restrictions that would hinder the law-abiding gun owner more than it would hinder the law-ignoring gun owner.

For example, safety locks… as has been argued in another thread, it’d be very difficult to enforce such a law (you can’t go kicking in people’s houses looking for locked-up guns without probable cause, can you?). Waiting periods, also, which do nothing but make the purchaser of the gun wait… I mean, it doesn’t take very long to do a background check these days. Certainly not 30 days. Licensing, too… Mr Joe Average would follow that law, but Bubba de Criminal wouldn’t be affected in the slightest.

In other words, worthless restriction is bad, worthful restriction is good. That has always been my stance, and the stance of the NRA.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Opus1 *

Danimal: thanks for pointing out the death-penalty stance. I knew there were certain things that the ACLU disagreed with everyone on, and yet sill considered themselves to be on the side of the constitution.

Disagreed with everyone on? Like the Republican governor of Illinois who issued a moratorium on death penalty executions until they could be studied further? (Admittedly, he is not as strongly of the belief that the death penalty is wrong as the ACLU is, but the point is that views change over time. It is the job of the judiciary to enforce our basic rights even when they aren’t currently popular.)

[jshore]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *

In other words, worthless restriction is bad, worthful restriction is good. That has always been my stance, and the stance of the NRA.

“Cop-killer” bullets (i.e., ones that go through bullet-proof vests) good, guns that can pass through metal detectors good. Is this the same NRA you’re talking about?

[snac]

Where does the Second Amendment restrict itself to guns? Today we have bigger and better weapons than those silly old colonial militias were dealing with.

I am personally building my own nuclear bomb. Hey, if the government has one, I need one too…

What’s the NRA’s official stance on people possessing “arms” of greater destructive potential than an Uzi?

[Danimal]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
**Is not one of the criticisms of the ACLU that they interpret the term “the people” in the Constitution to mean “the individual person” in every single case except in that of the 2nd Amendment? Thus picking and choosing how they want to interpret such an important definition? **

That is right (although the criticism is not directed at the ACLU only). For instance, the ACLU and everybody else says, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is an individual right, not limited to the states or the people’s representatives assembled in Congress.

[Opus1]

Disagreed with everyone on? Like the Republican governor of Illinois who issued a moratorium on death penalty executions until they could be studied further? (Admittedly, he is not as strongly of the belief that the death penalty is wrong as the ACLU is, but the point is that views change over time. It is the job of the judiciary to enforce our basic rights even when they aren’t currently popular.)

Obviously “everyone” does not mean every single citizen of this country. The Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional. The death penalty has been legal in this country since its inception. Personally, I’m not a death penalty supporter. It will probably be outlawed some day. But the ACLU’s position disagrees with a number of current court rulings. This sort of undermines the claim that they simply defend the rights that the Supreme Court has already given us. Rather, they are defending rights that they would like us to have. Again, there’s nothing wrong with that except for the sanctimonious hypocrasy. There’s lots of anti-death penalty groups in this country. The ACLU should just come out and admit that they are trying to change the law, rather than defend it.

[Monster104]

Where does the Second Amendment restrict itself to guns? Today we have bigger and better weapons than those silly old colonial militias were dealing with.

Uh…yeah. Building yerself a Nuke, eh? :rolleyes: See, the thing is, most Americans have some kind of intelligence, something you apparently aren’t all that gifted in. There’s just a slight difference between “arms” (Arms being guns, at the time the Constitution was drafted. You do know when that was, right?) and “military hardware”.

[Flymaster]

*Originally posted by Monster104 *
**Uh…yeah. Building yerself a Nuke, eh? :rolleyes: See, the thing is, most Americans have some kind of intelligence, something you apparently aren’t all that gifted in. There’s just a slight difference between “arms” (Arms being guns, at the time the Constitution was drafted. You do know when that was, right?) and “military hardware”. **

And herein lies the debate. There’s also a “slight difference” between “arms” (arms being muzzle loading muskets, at the time the Constitution was drafted. You do know when that was, right?) and “military hardware” (Say, an AK-47).

[Kimstu]

Opus: But the ACLU’s position disagrees with a number of current court rulings. This sort of undermines the claim that they simply defend the rights that the Supreme Court has already given us. Rather, they are defending rights that they would like us to have. Again, there’s nothing wrong with that except for the sanctimonious hypocrasy.

I admit you were right about the more activist stance of the ACLU, Opus, but I don’t quite see why it should be considered “sanctimonious hypocrisy.” Their stated purpose is to defend the rights of US citizens. Naturally, that means “rights” as the ACLU sees them (and, for the majority of the time even if not all of the time, as US courts generally see them too). I don’t think that’s particularly sanctimonious, nor hypocritical. Obviously they’re not going to go around proclaiming “We’ll defend your claim to any right you think you have, even if we think you’re totally nuts for suggesting it!” Considering the battles the ACLU wages on behalf of citizens’ right to privacy, free expression, free exercise of religion, and a host of other things, I would not be inclined to call them “hypocrites” for calling themselves “defenders of civil liberties”, even if they don’t always see eye-to-eye with you (or me) about exactly what constitutes the full set of civil liberties.

The ACLU should just come out and admit that they are trying to change the law, rather than defend it.

They don’t hide the fact that they’re trying to change the law. What they’re trying to defend, in their view, is the constitutional rights of citizens, not the law per se.

(By the way, snac, I don’t think the NRA would really go to bat for private ownership of nuclear bombs. They seem to be firmly against any across-the-board prohibitions on private ownership of any small arms (revolvers and self-loading pistols; rifles and carbines; sub-machine guns; assault rifles; light machine-guns). I don’t know if they oppose private ownership of light weapons (heavy machine-guns; hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft guns; portable anti-tank guns; recoilless rifles; portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems; portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems; mortars of less than 100mm of calibre) and corresponding ammunition and explosives (shells and missiles for light weapons; mobile containers with missiles or shells for single-action anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems; anti-personnel and anti-tank hand grenades; landmines; explosives). Perhaps some better-informed NRA member can inform us exactly which weapons the organization feels that law-abiding citizens do have an unrestricted right to own, and which are inappropriate to “keep and bear”.

—Though judging from Monster’s and Flymaster’s exchange just above, it may be difficult to get a clear consensus on this. C’mon NRA folks, what’s the Straight Dope? Portable anti-tank rocket launchers, yes or no? Anti-personnel hand grenades, yes or no?)

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by jshore *
**

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *

In other words, worthless restriction is bad, worthful restriction is good. That has always been my stance, and the stance of the NRA.

“Cop-killer” bullets (i.e., ones that go through bullet-proof vests) good, guns that can pass through metal detectors good. Is this the same NRA you’re talking about? **

Do you even know what that means? Let me ask you a question - is any bullet that can penetrate a police tactical vest a “cop-killer bullet”? Better ban all hunting rifles then - because almost all hunting rifles over .223 (and I think .223 as well) can penetrate a police tactical vest. Yes, the NRA is opposed to blanket bans of all hunting rifles. And so, apparantly, are Al Gore and Bill Clinton. At least, that is what they say…

As to your “guns that can pass through metal detectors” statement - another non sequiter. No such gun has been produced for mass sale, and there was never any attempt to legalize such a gun. And the NRA never backed any proposal to allow guns that would escape detection by metal detectors.

If you’re anti-gun, fine. But stop making up things. That’s really sad, and lies just make the legitimate anti-gun argument look silly, ignorant, and dishonest. Please admit you are wrong, and withdraw your points. Or prove me wrong.

[Boris_B]

Monster104 wrote,

Now, this is from an obscure document that people often refer to but don’t seem to have read…

Yes, that’s right. It’s the second amendment, taken straight from the Constitution. Now, where does it say, weapons are to be well regulated? I see the part of having a well regulated militia to keep the country free, and another part about the people having the right to keep and bear arms. There’s also a little part that says “shall not be infringed”. Gee, what does that mean?

Isn’t it a bit late to be getting all sarcastic about the Constitution, when I’ve already supplied a constitutional cite? Have you ever read the part of Constitution that I cited? Intepret it. Do you think the Second Amendment repeals Article I Section 8 Clause 16 or do you not?

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**C’mon NRA folks, what’s the Straight Dope? Portable anti-tank rocket launchers, yes or no? Anti-personnel hand grenades, yes or no?) **

I think this describes the pro-gun position many people have on this issue.

Paraphrased from the talk.politics.guns - Pro Gun FAQ (an EXCELLENT read, BTW):

This argument is often known as the “nuclear strawman” argument, and is really engineered to get everybody off on a tangent about whether or not the U.S. Constitution protects privately owned nuclear weapons.

Reynolds, Glenn H. and Kates, Don B., “The Second Amendment And States’ Rights: A Thought Experiment,” William and Mary Law Rev., v.36 pp. 1737-1768 (1995)

In summary: The Second Amendment protects all arms, though as is mentioned elsewhere, those arms which have some relationship to a well-regulated militia are better protected than those which do not, at least according to legal precedent. Many people are justifiably distressed at the thought of private individuals owning such indiscriminately destructive and persistently dangerous weapons. Some supporters of the civil right to keep and bear arms, as a result, seek to interpret “arms” as meaning “personal arms” (i.e. those which can be carried and used by an individual against another individual). However, in researching the era during which Amendment II was drafted, it is possible to find individuals who owned cannon and privateer ships, much as it is possible today to find people who own tanks and planes from the World War II era (and later), some with functioning guns. Civil War re-enactor companies today sometimes own cannon and other weapons which were state-of-the-art for that period.

If one attempts to “creatively interpret” the Second Amendment today to say that it should now only apply to “personal arms” (in the absence of any textual or historical basis for that interpretation), what legitimate objection can one have to others who “creatively interpret” it to say that it now applies only to the National Guard, or even to say that it’s entirely outmoded and can be totally ignored?

Any of these is an arbitrary selective interpretation, and all are equally unsupportable, as would be any attempt to limit the First Amendment protection of a free press only to, say, presses like those used by Benjamin Franklin, and not the unimaginably more powerful telecommunications devices of today. It is perhaps not surprising, however, that the power which modern telecommunications gives to the individual is similarly opposed, out of fears of what can possibly be done with it.

The implications of the “states’ rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment are also noteworthy in this regard. If the Second Amendment is properly understood to protect the militias of the state governments from being interfered with by the Federal authority, the existing structure of the National Guard would very likely be unconstitutional, and there could be no bar to the states possessing independent nuclear arsenals as a counterforce to the power of the Federal standing army. The types of “arms” available to a state government, particularly in a wealthy state like California, would undoubtedly exceed that of most every individual.

The Second Amendment was indeed written to protect all arms, and thus nuclear weapons are included. If multibillionaires (or wealthy state
militias!) funding their own private bomb development efforts seem to be a problem worthy of serious consideration, what’s the solution?
Follow the procedure that the authors of the Constitution provided for modifying the Constitution to adapt to changing times --amend it by following the procedures in Article V. The people who wrote the Constitution did not intend for it to be selectively interpreted in order to fit changing conditions. They planned that if conditions did change enough to warrant an alteration in a provision of the Constitution, it should be done with due care and consideration, and only upon the agreement of two thirds of each house of Congress, and three fourths of the legislatures of the states. This is the
proper way to react to changing times-- through the amendment process, and not by arbitrary denial of the plain language of the Constitution, by whatever branch of government.

[Boris_B]

anthracite wrote,

Do you even know what that means? Let me ask you a question - is any bullet that can penetrate a police tactical vest a “cop-killer bullet”? Better ban all hunting rifles then - because almost all hunting rifles over .223 (and I think .223 as well) can penetrate a police tactical vest.

I figured that when jshore mentioned “cop-killer bullets”, he was talking about bullets. You seem to be talking about cartridges. Arguments about armor-piercing bullets center on the design of the bullet, not the power of the cartridge. Some people think that bronze-, brass-, and/or steel-core bullets need some special new regulations because of their resistance to deformation when they hit body armor; I do not. I’m just trying to keep us all on the same page.

[capacitor]

So you’re saying Anthracite that if Bill Gates and Larry Ellison gets hold of nukes and aim it at each other’s houses, they legally can?

[Boris_B]

kimstu wrote,

Though judging from Monster’s and Flymaster’s exchange just above, it may be difficult to get a clear consensus on this.

Boy oh boy you can say that again! One funny thing about people on both sides of this issue is the inability of so many to admit that there are many shades of opinion on each side. I’ve discussed the issue of “rights to own which weapons are protected by the Second Amendment?” with a lot of pro-gun people and I get nearly as many answers as people.

I summarize these, as follows (adding my own comments):

1. Of course artillery and missiles aren’t protected by the Second Amendment. Nobody thinks they are. (That’s right, these folks don’t just disagree with proponents of view number 2, they deny their very existence.) “Arms” clearly refers only to man-portable firearms using unguided projectiles. (Which would include 40mm grenade launchers unless you had a very detailed definition of firearm, which would open another can of worms.)

2. Of course artillery and missiles are protected by the Second Amendment. This is a good provision and should be left in place.

3. It doesn’t matter, because the Federal Government regulates artillery and the like as Destructive Devices, which require registration and a tax. (This argument is completely off the subject; the topic is what pro-gun people feel the Feds have the right to regulate, not what the Fed actually do regulate.)

4. (I was just introduced to this one by anthracite.) Artillery, missiles, and nuclear warheads are protected by the Second Amendment. This is a bad provision and should be amended away. (What to do about the Stinger missiles that old guy keeps on his farm near the airport while the amendment wends its way through the legislatures is a question left unanswered. Where the pro-gun groups are lining up to support this amendment is also left unanswered.)

[The_Ryan]

Kimstu

Um, no, actually. Whatever it takes to conform to what the ACLU has concluded that the Supreme Court says that our constitution says. The ACLU is an advocacy group, not for instituting freedoms that some people think Americans ought to possess, but for the defense of the freedoms that it has been widely accepted, especially by the courts, that Americans do currently possess.

Not only would this be a ridiculous position for the ACLU to take (we only defend rights that are in abolutely no danger of being threatened), but it is not true. From their website:

In 1920, when the ACLU was founded… civil liberties were in a sorry state… the Supreme Court had yet to uphold a sinlgle free speach claim under the First Amendment

In other words, public attitude towards the 1st amendment was almost exactly the same as towards the 2nd amendment.

*Originally posted by Boris B *
I think the ACLU is aware of Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and is taking this into account in their intepretation of the Second Amendment.

Fist of all, what part of “amendment” do you not understand? Secondly, how does I 8 16 contradict the 2nd amendment?

[SPOOFE]

Jshore…

“Cop-killer” bullets (i.e., ones that go through bullet-proof vests) good

Any bullet that comes out of your average rifle will go through “bullet-proof vests”. BP vests aren’t some sort of magic armor that will protect a cop from all sorts of damage. As such, your contention that the NRA supports “Cop-killer” bullets has no grounds in reality, as “Cop-killer” bullets as you describe them are simply standard bullets that are being misused.

guns that can pass through metal detectors good.

These do not exist, except in movies. Perhaps Wesley Snipes isn’t the best source for your anti-gun rhetoric?

Is this the same NRA you’re talking about?

You mean, the NRA with a touch of sense? That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

[The_Ryan]

In other words, public attitude towards the 1st amendment was almost exactly the same as towards the 2nd amendment.

Sorry, that should be "In other words, public attitude towards the 1st amendment then was almost exactly the same as towards the 2nd amendment is now.

[Gadarene]

Opus1:

The death penalty has been legal in this country since its inception.

If by “this country” you mean the United States, then this statement is patently untrue. The Supreme Court placed a moratorium on capital punishment for several years in the 1970s.