ACLU member: "Armed Citizenry Will Not Be Oppressed"

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by hacon1, Feb 8, 2008.


  1. hacon1

    hacon1 Monkey+++

    Odd editorial from a professed ACLU member in Virginia:

    http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinio...2-07-0040.html

    ****

    Armed Citizenry Will Not Be Oppressed

    Thursday, Feb 07, 2008 - 12:09 AM

    Editor, Times-Dispatch:

    As a liberal, a member of the ACLU of Virginia, and a self-proclaimed student of the Constitution of this nation I was interested John Schuiteman's letter, "Safe Society Demands Tight Gun Regulation."

    The writer is correct that tightened gun regulation would probably increase public safety. However, public safety was not the concern of the drafters of the Constitution or the purpose of the Second Amendment.

    To exist in a society and interact with others brings two compelling and conflicting pressures to bear: safety and freedom. With more safety there is less freedom. With more freedom there is less safety. Benjamin Franklin noted that in our quest for safety we will threaten freedom: "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security."

    The rationale for citizen gun-ownership lies in the right to overthrow one's government. Armed citizens can never be oppressed. Look at Vietnam, under both the French and the Americans. Read what limited headlines we receive from Iraq. If Eastern Europe had the right to keep and bear arms in 1939, the Holocaust might have been different. Anyone familiar with the Warsaw uprising will agree.

    If slaves had access to weapons, slavery would not have lasted as long as it did and the impact of Jim Crow laws would have been tremendously different. The defeat of the British was directly attributable to the Americans' ownership of and ability to access and use firearms. If deer had guns there would unlikely be a hunting season.

    The Framers feared oppressive governments and oppressive majorities and believed government oppression, or at least creeping restriction, was inevitable. A good government is one that never takes the allegiance of the people for granted. An armed citizenry must be appeased.

    The right to keep and bear arms is another American freedom, unique in the world and undervalued by the majority of Americans, guaranteed as our birthright, and as important to true liberty as freedom of religion, the press, and expression. To be a citizen of the United States is to treasure freedom, self-determination, and liberty above all else.

    David P. Baugh. Richmond.
    <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
     
  2. MbRodge

    MbRodge Monkey+++

    WTF? Is he sure he's a member of the ACLU?
     
  3. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    The ACLU support ALL of our civil liberties; it is the ones that are unpopular to many of us that gives them the "Liberal Woosy" label. I have always spoken out for the rights of those that I disagree with because that is the foundation of liberty. Name one other organization that will do that?
     
  4. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    by gawd that's well said..all that "edumacation" was not lost effort...
     
  5. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder


    [clp][clp][clp]

    This is the only way to ensure that there is FREEDOM for everyone. If we all don't have freedom then none of us do.

    OGM
     
  6. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++

    As I've said before in other threads. The "liberals" are often the ones really defending our civil rights. How many conservative groups or republican groups for that matter do you see jumping up to protect our rights ??? I can only think of one NRA off the top of my head. But the "liberals" one group after another. They reallly do back up their words with action.
     
  7. BigO01

    BigO01 Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Name one case where the ACLU defended a citizen from the ATF in the last 3 decades .

    I can't recall a single one .

    You find one lib who understands what the Constitution means and you get all excited .

    For the past 40+ years those who identify themselves as liberals have championed the cause of Gun Control while doing everything in their power to pretect the scum of society , the porn peddlers , perverts and Anti American scum on our soil burning our flag and spitting on our Vets returning home from war .

    These are people who as a whole you admire ?

    Lets see just off the top of my head Liberals who have push the anti 2A position

    Bill Clinton , Hllery Clinton , John Kerry , Al Gore , Christopher Dodd , Chuck Schumen , Nancy Polosy , Ted kennedy , Joseph Biden , Barbra Boxer , Richard Durbin , Dian Feingstein , Frank Lauthenberg , Patrick Leahey , Claire McCaskill , Harry Reid , John Rockefeller , Janet Reno , Jocelyn Elders , Joe McNamera , Patrick Moynihan , Mel Rynolds , Carl Rowen , and the list goes on and on and on .
     
  8. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++


    And just that because on one subject that you disagree with them they become evil. They do their best to protect everyon's civil liberties. Even the kkk, even the skinheads, everyone. The people they find distasteful even discusting they defend the rights of. Can you say the same ? Or do you only care about your jugement and are not really focused on civil rights ?

    Hey, I have my guns and don't agree with many aclu stances on things. But I will acknowledge their commitment to everyone's civil rights and the good they do in the world.
     
  9. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    No they protect the rights they want to protect. If it was actualy protecting civil rights then they would have to protect all of them and the 2A is there in black and white even more plain than most of the ones they fight for.

    Im not saying the ACLU is BAD, at worst I figure they would come out as a neutral since they do fight to protect SOME of SOME peoples rights but they also refuse help if you dont fit in their pet groups. For instance I dont recall haveing ever heard of them supporting a white kids rights to not be descriminated against when he couldnt go to an all black collage or couldnt be considered for a scholarship that was for minorities, yet they will fight for a minority who isnt allowed into a school based on race or is denied consideration for a scholarship based on race. I just offer this as one example of the fact that they are NOT for everyones equal rights and protecting the constitution since if you are for equality you are for EVERYONES equality and if you are for civil liberties you have to protect them all, and the simple fact is that isnt the case with them. So while they help some in some cases they dont get any awards for being the defenders of civil liberties when they only pick and choose who gets them and which ones they get.

    Oh and there are SEVERAL 2A groups that are mostly conservative.
     
  10. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    The ACLU Defends Gun Rights

    Jacob Sullum | April 6, 2007, 5:53pm
    <!-- google_ad_section_start --> Since I live in Texas, I'm embarrassed to say I was not aware of this story until I saw it in yesterday's New York Times: The ACLU of Texas has joined with the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA to fight local prosecutors who are defying a law aimed at protecting law-abiding Texans from being arrested for having guns in their cars. State law has long exempted people who have guns in their vehicles while "traveling" from being prosecuted for unlawful carrying of a weapon (UCW), an offense punishable by up to a year in jail. But the definition of "traveling" was fuzzy, leaving gun owners vulnerable to arrest, prosecution, and conviction, depending on how police officers, prosecutors, and judges decided to read and apply the law. In 2005, at the urging of the gun groups and the state ACLU, the legislature passed a law that creates a presumption of "traveling" for any motorist in a private vehicle who is not legally disqualified from owning a gun, does not belong to "a criminal street gang," is not engaged in criminal activity (beyond minor traffic infractions), and is not carrying the gun in plain view. But in a report issued last February, the ACLU of Texas, the Texas State Rifle Association, and the Texas Criminal Justice Association showed that many district and county attorneys are instructing police to carry on as before, arresting motorists for UCW at their discretion and letting prosecutors and judges sort things out.
    Given its mission, the ACLU certainly should be fighting such lawless harassment of innocent people. But it is notable that the gun angle did not prevent the Texas chapter from getting involved, despite the national organization's position that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Since it does not believe the Second Amendment imposes any limits on the government's authority to restrict possession of guns, the national ACLU has never challenged gun control laws. By contrast, the ACLU of Texas supported statutory changes aimed at allowing law-abiding Texans to keep guns in their cars, whether for self-defense or while on the way to and from the shooting range, and now it is monitoring enforcement of the changes and recommending further revisions to ensure that the legislature's intent is implemented.
    Scott Henson, who testified in favor of the "traveling" law on behalf of the ACLU, has background over at Grits for Breakfast here, here, and here.
     
  11. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    The ACLU stands on the 1939 Miller decision that SCOTUS issued that the 2ond is not an individual right but a collective right for States to bear arms. If SCOTUS defines the 2ond as an individual right, then I am sure that ACLU will defend it. That is the issue, not popularity. Blame SCOTUS for the present apparent.
     
  12. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    IIRC, Miller was heard by the court, but Miller was not represented to argue the case. Hence, the lower court ruling stood. If so, the challenge was not ever presented properly, so the court had no way to assess the arguments other than the single side they heard.

    Does anyone know if the ACLU has submitted a brief reflecting the national policy in Heller? That would be interesting.
     
  13. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I dont know. I figure they dont mind takeing other matters to the SCOTUS if its on rights they SEEM to have a higher view of, so it seems like if it was gonna be even handed then they would have plenty of oprotunity to have questioned that stand of the court.

    Like I say, they do some good in the areas they choose to fight for but I dont view them as defenders of ALL civil rights any more than I do 2A groups or anti descrimination groups.
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7