ACLU goes to bat for NRA First Amendment rights (check your calendar - it is not April 1st)

[OldBroad44]

From the article.

In other words.....only SOME of the Bill of Rights is worth protecting?

Aloha, Mark

No. In other words people and orgs can't fix everything. They make choices about how they spend their time and money. And many people in the urban E or NE don't believe 2A grants any gun rights to individuals who are not in the military. The two years I went to school in MA and two years in NY that was what the teachers and books said. Both explicitly spelled out that 2A is often misinterpreted to grant rights to individuals but does not, is about military only. I actually kearbed to shoot befire I even went to school. Taught by my career AF dad. Actually I was in Cambridge MA for grad school. And it would have cost me a mandatory year in prison for possessing the .22 semiauto I simply kept my mouth shut about during my years in grad school. I actually pocketed that gun when I ran out of the Harvard grad student women's dorm where I lived my first year in response to a woman's scream suddenly cut off and chased off a would be rapist. I sometimes think about the woman I saved. She almost undoubtedly was an anti-gunner. She never knew it was a woman citizen with a gun who saved her bacon that night.

There is genuine disagreement among people ranging from constitutional law experts to the general public as to the implications of the statement justifying the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of militia's being necessary for the well being of a state. Its a downright puzzling statement and invites anyone uncomfortable with guns to imagine that it justified guns in the hand of citizens only for the purpose of militias. Other rights aren't justified in ways that seem intended to limit their scope. For example, the right to free speech does not say something like, "Because of the need of voting citizens to have information on which to base their votes, the rights of newspapers to publish shall not be infringed." If that's how the right to free speech was represented, there would be many who believed that the right to free speech applied only to newspapers or to things published in newspapers, or to white males who owned property, since they were the only ones who could vote.

Among those who belong to ACLU, the vast majority undoubtedly believe in only a very much more limited interpretation of 2A than most of us here do. Should ACLU spend time and money fighting for 2A, it would have gone out of business a long time ago. It depends on member contributions. As it was, they fought hard for full rights for blacks. And for free speech. And left 2A alone, neither helping or harming. Every 5O1c3 makes choices. I generally approve of orgs that do good on the issues that I agree with them on and do nothing on the issues where I disagree with them. And don't do anything egregiously unfair or stupid. I still approve of ACLU, even though these days I prefer to spend my time and money supporting other orgs focused on other issues.

 

[CamoDeafie]

@OldBroad44 ; a cursory look at the Militia Act of 1792, along with documents of the era; makes amply clear that at the time, all free, able-bodied men aged 18 to 45, were expected to be able to serve as militia members on call with their own firearms, ammunition, equipment. The Founders fully expected that American Citizens would serve as militiamen, not attached nor employed as professional standing armies; to protect their States/country.

 

[Croat]

No. In other words people and orgs can't fix everything. They make choices about how they spend their time and money. And many people in the urban E or NE don't believe 2A grants any gun rights to individuals who are not in the military. The two years I went to school in MA and two years in NY that was what the teachers and books said. Both explicitly spelled out that 2A is often misinterpreted to grant rights to individuals but does not, is about military only. I actually kearbed to shoot befire I even went to school. Taught by my career AF dad. Actually I was in Cambridge MA for grad school. And it would have cost me a mandatory year in prison for possessing the .22 semiauto I simply kept my mouth shut about during my years in grad school. I actually pocketed that gun when I ran out of the Harvard grad student women's dorm where I lived my first year in response to a woman's scream suddenly cut off and chased off a would be rapist. I sometimes think about the woman I saved. She almost undoubtedly was an anti-gunner. She never knew it was a woman citizen with a gun who saved her bacon that night.

There is genuine disagreement among people ranging from constitutional law experts to the general public as to the implications of the statement justifying the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of militia's being necessary for the well being of a state. Its a downright puzzling statement and invites anyone uncomfortable with guns to imagine that it justified guns in the hand of citizens only for the purpose of militias. Other rights aren't justified in ways that seem intended to limit their scope. For example, the right to free speech does not say something like, "Because of the need of voting citizens to have information on which to base their votes, the rights of newspapers to publish shall not be infringed." If that's how the right to free speech was represented, there would be many who believed that the right to free speech applied only to newspapers or to things published in newspapers, or to white males who owned property, since they were the only ones who could vote.

Among those who belong to ACLU, the vast majority undoubtedly believe in only a very much more limited interpretation of 2A than most of us here do. Should ACLU spend time and money fighting for 2A, it would have gone out of business a long time ago. It depends on member contributions. As it was, they fought hard for full rights for blacks. And for free speech. And left 2A alone, neither helping or harming. Every 5O1c3 makes choices. I generally approve of orgs that do good on the issues that I agree with them on and do nothing on the issues where I disagree with them. And don't do anything egregiously unfair or stupid. I still approve of ACLU, even though these days I prefer to spend my time and money supporting other orgs focused on other issues.

I agree in part. Historically, ACLU has done a world of good to maintain First Amendment freedoms in this country. But that was then and this is now. Even the uber-progressive Atlantic magazine, pretty much THE liberal rag for the Northeast part of the country, claims the ACLU has lost its way, writing in May 2022: "The ACLU now seems largely unable or unwilling to uphold its core values." The ACLU made a conscious decision, especially evident during the past decade, to advocate not solely for the U.S. Constitution, but to expand its endeavors to become a political advocacy group. That's the difference between the historical ACLU and what they are today. And to be clear, anyone who sends money to the ACLU is sending money against the 2nd Amendment, not for it.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Also, if the Founders really meant for the government to be armed, 2A could've easily said "the Right of the State to keep and bear arms"

 

[Yarome]

No. In other words people and orgs can't fix everything. They make choices about how they spend their time and money. And many people in the urban E or NE don't believe 2A grants any gun rights to individuals who are not in the military. The two years I went to school in MA and two years in NY that was what the teachers and books said. Both explicitly spelled out that 2A is often misinterpreted to grant rights to individuals but does not, is about military only. I actually kearbed to shoot befire I even went to school. Taught by my career AF dad. Actually I was in Cambridge MA for grad school. And it would have cost me a mandatory year in prison for possessing the .22 semiauto I simply kept my mouth shut about during my years in grad school. I actually pocketed that gun when I ran out of the Harvard grad student women's dorm where I lived my first year in response to a woman's scream suddenly cut off and chased off a would be rapist. I sometimes think about the woman I saved. She almost undoubtedly was an anti-gunner. She never knew it was a woman citizen with a gun who saved her bacon that night.

There is genuine disagreement among people ranging from constitutional law experts to the general public as to the implications of the statement justifying the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of militia's being necessary for the well being of a state. Its a downright puzzling statement and invites anyone uncomfortable with guns to imagine that it justified guns in the hand of citizens only for the purpose of militias. Other rights aren't justified in ways that seem intended to limit their scope. For example, the right to free speech does not say something like, "Because of the need of voting citizens to have information on which to base their votes, the rights of newspapers to publish shall not be infringed." If that's how the right to free speech was represented, there would be many who believed that the right to free speech applied only to newspapers or to things published in newspapers, or to white males who owned property, since they were the only ones who could vote.

Among those who belong to ACLU, the vast majority undoubtedly believe in only a very much more limited interpretation of 2A than most of us here do. Should ACLU spend time and money fighting for 2A, it would have gone out of business a long time ago. It depends on member contributions. As it was, they fought hard for full rights for blacks. And for free speech. And left 2A alone, neither helping or harming. Every 5O1c3 makes choices. I generally approve of orgs that do good on the issues that I agree with them on and do nothing on the issues where I disagree with them. And don't do anything egregiously unfair or stupid. I still approve of ACLU, even though these days I prefer to spend my time and money supporting other orgs focused on other issues.

Not to put a fine point on it, but you essentially just said what @ma96782 was implying. The ACLU believes that some rights are more equal than others and deserve defending... and others where they disagree with the law of the land and SC rulings... are not.

They are well within their rights to believe what they want, however, IMHO... it's more than a bit shady and entirely disingenuous to try and sell themselves as a "civil liberties defense organization". They appear very clearly a selective special interest group.

You said that they are "neither helping or harming"... but in reality... when they fail to defend certain rights and speak openly in support of the opposition against an inalienable right of the people.... that does in fact, do harm.

If what you say is true then their position would be, "no comment".

Food for thought.

 

[OldBroad44]

When the NRA was founded in 1871 in the wake of the Civil War, and after seeing how terrible marksmanship proved during that conflict (Union estimates were 1,000 rounds fired for every hit on an enemy combatant*), Union veterans Colonel William Church and General George Wingate formed the NRA with the following mission: "Promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." Kind of interesting that the ACLU would stand opposed to the NRA's mission.

*Even if 1,000/hit is valid, the accuracy of Civil War weapons no doubt contributed to that deplorable ratio as much as just marksmanship, but I digress...

Not surprising. Probably mostly only members or former members of NRA know that. The general public doesn't even know about it. And that isn't the public image any more. Its for battles over 2A or pretending to battle over 2A and for being corrupt as an org. Orgs change with the years. Quoting the goals of long dead founders doesn't prove anything to people outside the org. Most orgs change their goals or abandon the principles of their founders or collapse entirely within a few years of the death or retirement of the founding generation. Or expand to where the original goal is no longer the main purpose.

As for Union soldiers, many soldiers in various nations and wars, especially draftees, shoot over the heads of the enemy. Many military practices, such as calling the enemy by contemptuous names such as gooks, or spreading information that they rape your women and torture prisoners...whether they do or not, are aimed at making the soldier view enemy soldiers as less than human. As vermin that it is okay and good to kill. Its actually not easy to get soldiers to kill the enemy, even when they are a different race, religion, and culture.

When the enemy is the same race and culture as you it must have been even harder to get Union soldiers to actually try to kill the enemy. Especially since fighting to hold the union together was very abstract. And few Northern soldiers actually cared about slavery in the South. The southerners probably had most soldiers trying to kill yankees. They had been invaded. If they lost they were likely to be occupied. Lose their property . lose their so-called way of life and have Yankee patterns imposed on them. If the Yanks lost they would just go home and back to living by their own culture but just quit trying to force the S to adopt their culture.

 

[ma96782]

As for Union soldiers, many soldiers in various nations and wars, especially draftees, shoot over the heads of the enemy. Many military practices, such as calling the enemy by contemptuous names such as gooks, or spreading information that they rape your women and torture prisoners...whether they do or not, are aimed at making the soldier view enemy soldiers as less than human. As vermin that it is okay and good to kill. Its actually not easy to get soldiers to kill the enemy, even when they are a different race, religion, and culture.

RE : The Enemy
Hummm...........

How does one pick out the bad Commies from the good Commies when they are attacking in a mass?



Aloha, Mark

PS.....Rrrrrright.



BUT, But, but....YES, on an individual basis, it might not be so easy for SOME.

 

[OldBroad44]

@OldBroad44 ; a cursory look at the Militia Act of 1792, along with documents of the era; makes amply clear that at the time, all free, able-bodied men aged 18 to 45, were expected to be able to serve as militia members on call with their own firearms, ammunition, equipment. The Founders fully expected that American Citizens would serve as militiamen, not attached nor employed as professional standing armies; to protect their States/country.

Hmmmm. If the founders and everyone in that era interpreted 2A to mean what was covered in the militia act of 1792, seems they would not have needed the act. Nor made it for two years only initially.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Hmmmm. If the founders and everyone in that era interpreted 2A to mean what was covered in the militia act of 1792, seems they would not have needed the act. Nor made it for two years only initially.

Renewed every time and updated. It ultimately evolved into the Draft, and then Selective Service we all know of. Of course things have changed since then because Congress is supposedly only able to "raise army" during wartime but the intent is there that the People would be as well armed and equipped or better, than standing armies of the time (including the future) and the 2A not be limited only to the Government/State/military industrial complex.

Edit the 2 year thing is because it also apparently set out a payment schedule for certain ranks and officers in the militias to be paid by States it seems

 

[Yarome]

Hmmmm. If the founders and everyone in that era interpreted 2A to mean what was covered in the militia act of 1792, seems they would not have needed the act. Nor made it for two years only initially.

The fly in the soup is that all the militia act did was to grant the federal gooberment the authority to temporarily take control of local and state militia's. IOW, "An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union.." It did not mutually exclude the existence of non federally controlled militias. It was later expanded to grant the authority for the gooberment to "permanently" call forth the militia to federal duty.

Just hitting the high level principle, but it would also beg the question... if militias only exist within federal authority... how could they "call forth" the "militia" into service?

The act was most definitely necessary in order for "the people" to grant the gooberment that authority.

 

[OldBroad44]

The fly in the soup is that all the militia act did was to grant the federal gooberment the authority to temporarily take control of local and state militia's. IOW, "An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union.." It did not mutually exclude the existence of non federally controlled militias. It was later expanded to grant the authority for the gooberment to "permanently" call forth the militia to federal duty.

Just hitting the high level principle, but it would also beg the question... if militias only exist within federal authority... how could they "call forth" the "militia" into service?

The act was most definitely necessary in order for "the people" to grant the gooberment that authority.

Good points, @Yarome. I cheerfully yield.

".Gooberment." Ha ha. That makes the problem obvious. Our country is a mess 'cause its being run by a buncha goobers.

 

[bcp]

If the 2nd was meant for the militia, it would have said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"People" in the 2nd means the same as "people" in the other amendments.

Bruce

 

[Diamondback]

Worth noting that when Hoover first ordered that FBI agents carry weapons someone challenged him to cite what gave him authority to do so and his answer was "The Second Amendment."