If you quoted Nadine Strossen correctly, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." then she forgot a few simple words like "of the people to keep and"
You would have to take that question up with Cathy Young of Reason - she's the one who interviewed Strossen, and I cut-n-pasted directly from her column.
But I suspect Strossen said precisely what was quoted. Without blushing.
There is a Reason The Bill of Rights was passed at the same time as the Constitution. Without The Bill of Rights the Constitution is not much of a statement. Jefferson was an admirer of Locke and he felt the only way to guarantee democracy was for *citizens* to have arms equal to the government. Jefferson and Locke were both smart men with their feet on the ground.
Oliver North, Rush Limpaw, J.'s Witnesses, so-called Chicago Nazis, kids wanting to sing religious songs in public school shows, Second Amendment Foundation, Direct Marketing Association, The Amish, a Nebraska church facing eviction, PA Baptists denied a zoning permit, a Michigan high schooler whose Christian yearbook message was censored, a MA student who received punishment for distributing candy canes with religious messages, an Iowa student prohibited from distributing Christian literature at public school.
All real bunch of left-wingers. And some real left-wingers. A people with no wings at all.
Yes, Michael, and they've defended not one single person on the grounds that their right to arms has been infringed. Not one. Because the ACLU has taken it upon itself to decide what is and what isn't a fundamental civil liberty, regardless of whether said liberty is enumerated in the Bill of Rights or not.
Free speech? They'll defend that. Assembly? Ditto. Freedom of religion? As long as it's not state-supported Christianity, fine with them.
IIRC, Grits for Breakfast is a Texas ACLUer and a supporter of gun rights, so they aren't 100% anti-gun at the local level. I might accept it if they'd just point out that there are other organizations with much larger budgets lobbying and litigating on behalf of gun owners, but damned near no one else willing to put money behind the free speech rights of JW's and Nazis. But instead, at the national level and in many of the local chapters, they support re-interpreting the Constitution until this one right has been explained away, and don't think that the same thing could be done to the rights they do support. Idiots...
I think they interpret the word "People" at THEIR convenience. See... "the declaration of Independence was written by the Governing Body of this country and was never intended to be extrapolated to mean John Q Public."
This is NOT a quote, but I bet they'd agree with it, then cheerfully use it to explain why Democracy is a lie.
When you demand to see their proof, they'll bring out the slavery argument.
No one seems willing to admit that there really were white guys around who wanted to repeal slavery in this country. They did in Brittan, which somehow explains why the Socialist EUtopia [TM] is better, even though at the time they would have been more in line with Lord Acton. They go on and on about "context" but fail utterly to get it. If it is not black and white iconic thinking, they don't understand. If it's outside their worldview or at all complicated, it's a lie. How convenient.
Hey... has the ACLU started fighting McCain/Feingold yet? :) Perhaps, if they haven't, they can say that political speech is a collective right, so the State has a right to limit it.
I think I need to take a shower. Or go to the range and make sure those paper targets are VERY VERY DEAD.
OR better yet, VOTE. Heh heh. At the end, I'll probably need to do all three. (no... voting is not optional)
Please, somebody prove me cynical.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2003/06/aclu-hasnt-changed-its-tune-aclu.html (10 comments)
If you quoted Nadine Strossen correctly, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." then she forgot a few simple words like "of the people to keep and"
You would have to take that question up with Cathy Young of Reason - she's the one who interviewed Strossen, and I cut-n-pasted directly from her column.
But I suspect Strossen said precisely what was quoted. Without blushing.
Great article. I'm sure you will like my site. Let me know if you do, and we will trade up links.
http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com
There is a Reason The Bill of Rights was passed at the same time as the Constitution. Without The Bill of Rights the Constitution is not much of a statement. Jefferson was an admirer of Locke and he felt the only way to guarantee democracy was for *citizens* to have arms equal to the government. Jefferson and Locke were both smart men with their feet on the ground.
The ACLU has always been primarily supportive of the left wing, and since the left is anti-gun, they are also.
Rod Stanton,
The Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788. The Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791.
The ACLU has defended (a very small sampling):
Oliver North, Rush Limpaw, J.'s Witnesses, so-called Chicago Nazis, kids wanting to sing religious songs in public school shows, Second Amendment Foundation, Direct Marketing Association, The Amish, a Nebraska church facing eviction, PA Baptists denied a zoning permit, a Michigan high schooler whose Christian yearbook message was censored, a MA student who received punishment for distributing candy canes with religious messages, an Iowa student prohibited from distributing Christian literature at public school.
All real bunch of left-wingers. And some real left-wingers. A people with no wings at all.
Yes, Michael, and they've defended not one single person on the grounds that their right to arms has been infringed. Not one. Because the ACLU has taken it upon itself to decide what is and what isn't a fundamental civil liberty, regardless of whether said liberty is enumerated in the Bill of Rights or not.
Free speech? They'll defend that. Assembly? Ditto. Freedom of religion? As long as it's not state-supported Christianity, fine with them.
Arms? "Go away, kid. Yer botherin' me."
IIRC, Grits for Breakfast is a Texas ACLUer and a supporter of gun rights, so they aren't 100% anti-gun at the local level. I might accept it if they'd just point out that there are other organizations with much larger budgets lobbying and litigating on behalf of gun owners, but damned near no one else willing to put money behind the free speech rights of JW's and Nazis. But instead, at the national level and in many of the local chapters, they support re-interpreting the Constitution until this one right has been explained away, and don't think that the same thing could be done to the rights they do support. Idiots...
I think they interpret the word "People" at THEIR convenience. See... "the declaration of Independence was written by the Governing Body of this country and was never intended to be extrapolated to mean John Q Public."
This is NOT a quote, but I bet they'd agree with it, then cheerfully use it to explain why Democracy is a lie.
When you demand to see their proof, they'll bring out the slavery argument.
No one seems willing to admit that there really were white guys around who wanted to repeal slavery in this country. They did in Brittan, which somehow explains why the Socialist EUtopia [TM] is better, even though at the time they would have been more in line with Lord Acton. They go on and on about "context" but fail utterly to get it. If it is not black and white iconic thinking, they don't understand. If it's outside their worldview or at all complicated, it's a lie. How convenient.
Hey... has the ACLU started fighting McCain/Feingold yet? :) Perhaps, if they haven't, they can say that political speech is a collective right, so the State has a right to limit it.
I think I need to take a shower. Or go to the range and make sure those paper targets are VERY VERY DEAD.
OR better yet, VOTE. Heh heh. At the end, I'll probably need to do all three. (no... voting is not optional)
Please, somebody prove me cynical.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>