ACLU getting blistered on it's own blog

[SixFive]

I didn't see another thread on this ruling

another link here.

Here's the ACLU's stance...

"Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
So, we?ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU?s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn?t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court?s decision in D.C. v. Heller. 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."

Why does the ACLU only defend the civil liberties it agrees with? <<even card carrying members must question this decision, right?

This isn't a bunch of right-wingers on the blog making these comments either. Read and see what you think.

 

[SixFive]

a few comments...

a few comments...

Novus Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I defended the ACLU in every case taken because I truly believed you were defending the civil rights laid out in the Constitution.
Whenever you changed your position because a Supreme Court decision changed the understanding of the civil right and you defended people under the new ruling, I agreed and I defended the ACLU with the same rigor and I also adopted the new position established by the Supreme Court.

Now that the ACLU is not defending the established individual civil right to keep and bear arms, the ACLU seems to be partisan, biased and selective in what they see as civil liberties, is therefore not the defenders of civil liberties I hold dear. I am disgusted and repulsed as well as feel betrayed knowing my defense for decades of what I thought was a great institution and my hero in many matters is nothing more than a fraud and run by a mob of hypocrites.



WLC Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 9:51 pm
How completely absurd! I agree with the above comments. If there was any doubt that the ACLU is pushing a left wing political agenda, that argument is over. It?s plainly obvious that the ACLU intends to support only civil liberties that support the left wing liberal agenda.

If you don?t have the 2nd amendment, how do you ever intend on keeping and defending the rest of them?

I will not be renewing my membership.

Trebor Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
?The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.?

So, since when does the ACLU?s interpretation of the Constitution supercede the U.S. Supreme Court?s interpretation of the Constitution?

The ACLU needs to recognize that this long running debate has been settled. *ALL* of the articles in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are now, have always been, and always will be *Individual rights.*

To argue otherwise at this point makes the ACLU look foolish, at best.

Lonnie Wilson Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I?m sorry to say that I?m ripping up my membership to the ACLU and sending it back to your HQ. By calling the Second Amendment a ?collective right? when all NINE Supreme Court Justices disagree with that statement, you completely undermine your organization?s moral authority to attack against the MCA, FISA changes, and so on.


L G Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I will not be renewing my membership to the ACLU until they recognise the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

You cannot pick and choose which rights you ?like? and which you ?don?t?

The right to own a gun is just as important as free speech and protections from incrimination, etc.

 

[dawgball]

Prett passionate and seems to be heart-felt responses.

I think it is unfair to fully categorize the ACLU based on one decision, though. (referring to the commenters, not 6-5) The commenters seem to have agreed with most of the ACLU's stances but now want to "rip up their memberships" based on this one. Sounds strange and extremist.

Personally, I think the ACLU, for the most part, stand for something great and needed in this country. I think they suffer from a bad PR reputation due to some of the not so obvious stances they must take.

I don't really know anything, but I think we would be worse off without the ACLU than with them.

 

[gardenweasel]

Prett passionate and seems to be heart-felt responses.

I think it is unfair to fully categorize the ACLU based on one decision, though. (referring to the commenters, not 6-5) The commenters seem to have agreed with most of the ACLU's stances but now want to "rip up their memberships" based on this one. Sounds strange and extremist.

Personally, I think the ACLU, for the most part, stand for something great and needed in this country. I think they suffer from a bad PR reputation due to some of the not so obvious stances they must take.

I don't really know anything, but I think we would be worse off without the ACLU than with them.

heres one we disagree on dawg......respectfully...

i think they`re so far to the left,they`re dangerous...