The ACLU on Guns

www.aclu.org ^ | ACLU

[f.Christian]

Why we need FR ... ' archives ' --- " not available now " !

[FreedomCalls]

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms.

The Constitution does indeed recognize such a right. The Constitution allows Congress to grant "Letters of Marque" which would allow Congress to award a commission to a privately owned warship bristling with cannon to wage war on the enemies of the United States. If the founding fathers recognized private ownership of such an awesome weapon of the day, then surely the present interpretation must allow for ownership of fearsome weapons of the present time. There may be other arguments for control of those weapons, but not a constitutional one.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Wow, that is an old message you are replying to. I will read it. thanks.

[RussRoberts]

I have long felt that the ACLU should change their name to the American Civil Rights Union, because civil liberties is not what they care for anymore.

When the ACLU aggressively pursues the separation of church and state, they always assert the "wall of separation" as its basis. Yet, this phrase only apears in one private letter from Thomas Jefferson, written many years after the Bill of Rights. Since one remote letter is such proof of intent, think of all the writings of the founding fathers, both before and after the Bill of Rights, asserting the need for the peple to have weapons. If one remote letter is so sacred to the ACLU, all of the writings on the right to keep and bear arms simply must mean something. Yet the ACLU ignores these.

[Ohioan]

The ACLU has never really been about protecting liberty. That is its pretense; but its Fabian Socialist founders--with a few Communists along for the ride--were bent upon using that pretense to undermine the infra-structure of American Society. (For more on the ACLU see Leftist Word Games & Religious Freedom.)

William Flax

[gatex]

"Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

The ACLU is knowingly, dishonestly, deceptive when they place this statement next to a statement about what the Miller case said --- they are implying the Supreme Court said this -- and the Supreme Court has never said anything close to this.

Therefore, Senator Dianne Feinstein can lie to the American public using the same approach and not be publically challenged.