Little-Acorn
07-04-2008, 09:04 PM
I guess if you can't read the normal English that the 2nd amendment is written in, you probably can't read the even-more-normal English the Supreme Court's Heller decision is written in, either. I can't imagine any other reason for the ACLU to keep sticking to their wrong ideas on what the 2nd means.
Sounds like some of their members CAN read, though... and as a result the ACLU's obtuseness is starting to cost them members.
---------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68695
ACLU blasted on own blog over 2nd Amendment stand
Posted: July 03, 2008
11:00 pm Eastern
The American Civil Liberties is getting blasted on its own blog site for holding onto the belief that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals.
"Sorry ACLU you lost me," wrote SuperNaut. "I just took the money I had slated to re-up my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership."
Hundreds of comments have been posted in just the first few days of July, almost uniformly condemning the ACLU's explanation of its position on gun rights, which is that individuals don't have them.
"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller," the page started. "While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."
(Story continues below)
The fine print said, "We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability."
Then it specifically asked that comments endorsing or opposing specific political candidates not be posted.
It seems as if posters could hardly wait to punch the "submit" button.
"So pretty much, your policy went from 'we agree with the decision in US v Miller that gun ownership is not a constitutional right' to 'we disagree with DC V Heller and still believe that gun ownership is not a constitutional right,' meaning that despite whatever ruling is laid down, the ACLU will be against the individual right of private gun ownership," said DJ Rick in launching the long list of several hundred comments.
"I was really hoping that the ACLU would at least reconsider its stance, now invalidated by the SCOTUS, and come around to the popularly accepted and now legally accepted view than an amendment in the bill of rights (whether it be the Firs (sic), Second, Third or whichever) actually protects an individual's right," he said.
"Q. How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? A. 1, 3, 4, 5…," he wrote.
"The ACLU's position was wrong before Heller; to maintain it now is absurd. Not one of the justices in Heller endorsed the 'collective rights' viewpoint. If the ACLU believes that it is the best public policy that individuals should not own guns, it should campaign for the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution," wrote Posey.
"Does that mean that I can interpret the constitution as not providing for a right to privacy? … Does the ACLU only defend civil liberties it agrees with?" wrote NotSurprised.
Sounds like some of their members CAN read, though... and as a result the ACLU's obtuseness is starting to cost them members.
---------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68695
ACLU blasted on own blog over 2nd Amendment stand
Posted: July 03, 2008
11:00 pm Eastern
The American Civil Liberties is getting blasted on its own blog site for holding onto the belief that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals.
"Sorry ACLU you lost me," wrote SuperNaut. "I just took the money I had slated to re-up my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership."
Hundreds of comments have been posted in just the first few days of July, almost uniformly condemning the ACLU's explanation of its position on gun rights, which is that individuals don't have them.
"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller," the page started. "While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."
(Story continues below)
The fine print said, "We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability."
Then it specifically asked that comments endorsing or opposing specific political candidates not be posted.
It seems as if posters could hardly wait to punch the "submit" button.
"So pretty much, your policy went from 'we agree with the decision in US v Miller that gun ownership is not a constitutional right' to 'we disagree with DC V Heller and still believe that gun ownership is not a constitutional right,' meaning that despite whatever ruling is laid down, the ACLU will be against the individual right of private gun ownership," said DJ Rick in launching the long list of several hundred comments.
"I was really hoping that the ACLU would at least reconsider its stance, now invalidated by the SCOTUS, and come around to the popularly accepted and now legally accepted view than an amendment in the bill of rights (whether it be the Firs (sic), Second, Third or whichever) actually protects an individual's right," he said.
"Q. How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? A. 1, 3, 4, 5…," he wrote.
"The ACLU's position was wrong before Heller; to maintain it now is absurd. Not one of the justices in Heller endorsed the 'collective rights' viewpoint. If the ACLU believes that it is the best public policy that individuals should not own guns, it should campaign for the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution," wrote Posey.
"Does that mean that I can interpret the constitution as not providing for a right to privacy? … Does the ACLU only defend civil liberties it agrees with?" wrote NotSurprised.