American Civil Liberties Union. Concerned with civil liberties. Has done the vast majority of its stuff in First Amendment, which is what civil liberties is all about. I myself am a free speech absolutist. You can’t do anything you want, but you can say anything you want.
Popular beliefs do not need protection. It is the unpopular point of view that needs protection. Your right to speak out in favor of apple pie, nice firm fannies, and Our Boys in Whereverthehell is not likely to be seriously abridged.
ACLU defends the rights of Nazi’s to spew toxic rot. The right of the Man/Boy Love group to put forth a repugnant sexual viewpoint. TO many it seems as though they only spring to defend ideas that are repugnant. They don’t. They defend the right to express ideas that are repugnant.
The part you’re referring to by innuendo, apparently.
Did anyone say Article I Section 8 Clause 16 contradicts the Second Amendment? I didn’t. They are both active sections of the Constitution. The Second Amendment prohibits categorically banning individual citizens (the militia) from owning guns; Article I Section 8 Clause 16 allows the Congress to organize, discipline, and have a role in the training of individual gun-owners. I also believe that the ACLU is aware of the latter section of the Constitution as well as the former.
I’m just a newbie here, so I don’t want it to be felt that I’m ordering anyone around.
I would like to suggest that we make the “Gun Control Revisited thread” the “NRA thread,” while making this thread the “ACLU thread.” I think if we did that we could reduce the overlap of the threads. This is only a suggestion.
Anthracite: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.
What I think the story is is that hard-cored coated bullets (originally developed for police use), such as KTW ammunition, were initially (in the early 80’s) going to be banned from private ownership by a law based on penetration power that was sweeping enough to make most conventional rifle ammunition illegal too. The NRA opposed this, and this led to claims that “the NRA favors cop killer bullets.” To be fair, the NRA did support, or now says it supported, the 1986 law (I think the bill was 99th Congress, HR 4) that outlawed manufacturing and importing specifically defined “armor piercing ammunition”; although to be fair on the other side too, I doubt that they would have gotten so squarely behind the new legislation if it hadn’t been for all the negative publicity about “NRA favors cop killer bullets.”
But the story doesn’t end there. There have been other legislative efforts to restrict specifically defined “armor piercing ammunition.” For example, the 106th Congress last year introduced a bill (S 158) to “regulate the manufacture, importation, and sale of ammunition capable of piercing police body armor”. Now this bill is listed on the NRA Legislative Action site as part of what they designate current “anti-gun” legislation, which they seem to be against. If, as the site I linked to above claims, the NRA is in favor of banning “armor piercing ammunition”, then why would they oppose S 158? If it’s because they have solid reason to believe that the legislation is unnecessary, I think they should say so explicitly and avoid a lot of misunderstanding and confusion. If it’s just out of general antiregulatory fervor, I don’t think it’s out of line to respond that that means that the NRA supports (or at least won’t oppose) “cop killer” bullets.
*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. *
Again, there seem to be some facts on both sides. The original “plastic gun” scare seems to have occurred over another early-80’s weapon, the Glock 17, which in fact had enough metal to be detected by airport scanners. So why does the NRA’s “fact sheet” announce that “the plastic gun is a myth” and at the same time argue that “More effective efforts include better training and screening of airport personnel and having state-of-the-art detection equipment in our nation’s airports. With well-trained people to complement existing and new technologies, will go a long way toward beating terrorism. Banning any firearm is not the answer. The fact is, it’s a media-made myth that dangerously ignores the real problem.” This seems to be saying that “there are no plastic guns and we should put our efforts into improving detection of them rather than banning them.” Huh? Does the NRA think that scanner-cheating polymer guns exist, or not? If so, why would they argue against banning them?
As for my query on what arms might be considered eligible for regulation according to pro-gun views—holy cow, Anthracite!
Great day in the morning. So our choice lies between accepting private ownership of everything up to and including state-of-the-art weapons of mass destruction, and amending the Constitution? Man, does that ever incline me to a weak interpretation of the Second Amendment. Y’know, this is the sort of thing that gets the pro-gun faction written off as a bunch of lunatics even among many people who seriously respect the sincerity and responsibility of most gun owners. I can kind of see why the ACLU doesn’t want to get involved with this.
And on that note, sorry 'bout the hijack Danimal. (scurrying back to original topic)
The Ryan: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.
Opus and Danimal already pointed out to me that the ACLU doesn’t in fact always restrict its support to positions that have a strong judicial consensus behind them; but actually, even rights that do have such a consensus are often threatened—not by the courts, but by patently unconstitutional legislation and policies that get enacted in defiance of the body of judicial opinion. There is plenty of unconstitutional stuff to fight against on the legislative level, even in areas where the judiciary is clear about its unconstitutionality. Yup, it’s stupid to pass laws or adopt policies that any fool could see a court would knock down right away, but legislatures and schools and employers are constantly doing it, and it generally doesn’t get fixed till an ACLU-supported plaintiff takes it to court.
It’s late and my brain is stripping gears at the moment, but . . .
Would not a reasonable interpretation of “keep and bear arms” be limited to arms that you actually can “bear?” As in carry around? I would like to see somebody try and bear an M1 Abrams or a 5-megaton strategic H-bomb.
No, no… they’re saying “There’s no plastic gun capable of getting past metal detectors. If there is one developed in the future, then most likely detection will have advanced to the point of stopping that, as well.”
Not at all. I think Anthracite’s point is that “gun fanatics” such as the NRA are NOT opposed to reasonable restrictions on arms (restricting nuclear weapons being a reasonabl restriction).
While one certainly can’t carry around a tank, one can easily carry a 5-megaton hydrogen bomb. One can fit into a suitcase, no problem.
A reasonable interpretation of “arms” would be “weapons that are sufficient in providing defense for you and your family”. Meaning that an AK-47 isn’t necessary towards defense, nor is a sawed-off shotgun… however, requiring trigger locks DETRACTs from defensive purposes, hence it’s an unreasonable restriction.
It says, clearly, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right shall be well-regulated. The subordinate clause (A well regulated militia being necessary…) gives the justification for the important part, not a qualification or limitation.
It could just as easily say “Froot Loops, being an important part of this nutritious breakfast, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed.” without significantly changing its meaning.
Why can’t the ACLU (or any other org) pick and choose what rights they want to defend? What obligation do they have to try and defend every Constitutional right?
You can’t defend one right without defending them all? That’s ludicrous. They can fight for whatever cause they want, and ignore any other causes they want to ignore.
It says, clearly, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right shall be well-regulated. The subordinate clause (A well regulated militia being necessary…) gives the justification for the important part, not a qualification or limitation.
It could just as easily say “Froot Loops, being an important part of this nutritious breakfast, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed.” without significantly changing its meaning. **
[/QUOTE]
Please. Why would the Founding Fathers have put that clause in if they didn’t intend it to mean what it says? Note that no other amendment has its own purpose stated.
Next: How can a militia, or anything else, be well-regulated if Congress does not have the power to regulate it?
I really enjoy hearing a hard-core gun rights supporter try to explain why only half of the single sentence that makes up the Second Amendment is sacred, while the other half can be ignored.
Well, upon a reading of the bill, and it’s pretty clear why the NRA would oppose it:
From Section 2:
First, we see "a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor.’.
How do I read that? Well, I read that that any projectile which can be used in a handgun, such as Thompson Center handguns that fire rifle rounds, that can penetrate body armor, regardless of intent or construction, can be banned. A Thompson Center handgun is a handgun (HCI tried unsuccessfully to classify them as NFA weapons in the “short-barreled rifle” category), and they fire a huge variety of common hunting cartridges.
Thus, if your Thompson Center .308 can penetrate body armor, then one must logically conclude that the .308 hunting round is subject to risk of banning.
Secondly - the bill gives sole descretionary power of banning to the whim of the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury. While power and abilities of this magnitude are certainly not an uncommon thing or an uncommon action in all branches of the Government, the NRA in general opposes clauses which are vague, and rely on the whim on an individual, who may be politically motivated to make certain decsions.
Well, perhaps there has been no reasonable legislation introduced to do so by the anti side, and there is the tremendous risk in any cause that proactive legislation introduced by the pro-gun side would be amended and twisted out of it’s original intent. For this same reason you will never see any bill restricting publishing of hate-oriented materials supported by the mass media. Or partial-birth abortion bills supported by NOW, even if a majority of the members believe in restricting them.
AFAIK, from the literature I have, there is no evidence these guns exist outside of whatever the CIA or NSA may have developed on their own.
Well, my point is best illustrated by this portion in specific:
Just because the founding fathers could not have forseen the advent of weapons of mass destruction (REAL weapons of mass destruction, not the label that the Clinton administration applies to “assault rifles”) does not mean that the 2nd Amendment should be creatively interpreted. It should be amended as per the regulations set forth in the Constitution itself.
I saw a show once on PBS that was surprisingly well-balanced regarding the early days of radio. In it, they detailed that there were arguments among policy makers in the early 1930’s as to whether or not radio stations should be permitted to be operated by non-governmental entities (i.e., the people). This came about during the great wave of Socialism of the New Deal, where many new radio stations were broadcasting anti-FDR and anti-New Deal rhetoric, which caused Democrats (that’s right, those free-speech loving Democrats) to question if the founding fathers could have ever imagined that one man could send his voice to millions, and thus be imbued with tremendous, inordinate power. Thus, a large many of the FCC regulations came about out of that fear.
I don’t believe in completely unregulated weapons, and obviously very few people do (I won’t speak for Wildest Bill, however ). But I posted the excerpt from the FAQ to try and put into words better the general idea, that I was having a difficult time wording.
Actually, I don’t necessarily mind people having tanks; I just don’t think they’re arms you can “bear” within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
I mean, think about it; a tank really has less practical criminal usefulness than a small arm. Sure, you can rob a bank with it. But you’ll be fleeing the scene at a waddling 40-some miles per hour. The police are not going to have any difficulty finding you. You kind of stand out among the Hondas and Chevies. You can’t hide the damn thing. Granted, the police really can’t do much to you until they call the nearest National Guard attack helicopter unit. But once the AH-64 arrives on the scene, you’re screwed.
Not to mention the fact that the tank costs more than whole !@#$% bank building and everything inside it!
I used to work in Rhode Island, and for many years the standing joke (in reference to the ACLU) was their lawsuits against the City of Pawtucket. Every November, the city would erect a crèche /nativity scene, on the grounds of the city hall. As soon as the thing was set up and lit, regular as rain, the ACLU would file their lawsuit (the standard church-state separation). This was always done-in spite of the complete lack of opposition from the local rabbis-in deed, I recall reading a letter written by the rabbi of an area synagogue, expressing his total indifference to the issue. I was always amazed by how much money was wasted on such a trivial issue. It always seemed to me, that the ACLU could choose some other issue to complain about. In my opinion, the Pawtucket Chapter of the ACLU was a bunch of self-righteous idiots who had little else to do with their time. I’ve been away from the state for some time-can any RI SD’er let me know if this farce is still continuing?
That is the kind of thing the ACLU does that just hacks me off. I mean what are they worried about some atheist becoming a believer from seeing the nativity scene. I mean afterall it is Christmas. I wonder if they go inspect the Christmas cards that are in state buildings to make sure their is nothing Godly in them. Give me a break. I bet they are the nuts that put the “X” in Christmas. Man, I dislike that organization. What a bunch wackos.
IMHO I really think that are founding fathers meant that the state not get involved in the church not the way the ACLU reads it and sues about it.
And I assume you’d also be fine with a giant depiction of a satanic ritual, or some sort of banner that displayed “Happy God doesn’t exist day!” on Town Hall, too. Sure you would.
Meanwhile, the “X” in xmas is pretty standard, as the x generally meant to mean “Christ,” and has for hundreds of years. It’s not some new fangled politically correct thing. It just saves space.
Since usually satanic ritual involve killing some sort of animals so with animal activist the way they are it wouldn’t stay up very long anyway. Also I wouldn’t mind if we can have a scene next to it showing God kicking the Devil’s ass.
You know what is funny Flymaster. Why do you capitalize God if he doesn’t exist?
Yea, I know I asked in GQ I spoke to soon I guess. But I still like it spelled out better.
Before someone says “you don’t have the right to never be offended”, you may replace the words “were offended” above with “recognized that their Constitution right to separation of church and state was violated”.
). But I posted the excerpt from the FAQ to try and put into words better the general idea, that I was having a difficult time wording.