Gun Owners of America give Bill Frist a "D" rating.
So I guess that GOP "leadership" doesn't have any problems with this article either.
Santorum gets a C! Go Ricky! (And no kids, C's aren't good enough!) ;-)
At
http://www.aclu-mass.org/archives/2ndamend.html
your organization writes:
A Yes. Federal, state and local governments can all regulate guns without violating the Second Amendment. State authorities have considerable powers to regulate guns. The federal government can also regulate firearm ownership, although some scholars believe that the federal power may not be as extensive as that of an individual state. California, for example, has limited the ability of local governments to regulate firearms. While the state has kept its broad regulatory power, cities and counties can only prohibit guns from being carried in public places.
It is interesting that you do not refer to the ninth or tenth amendments and that this statement gives no authorities and cites no sources (though other statements do.) You also ignore and fail to mention those plentiful disagreements with your point of view in the ample writings of the founding fathers.
Your pamphlet begins by characterizing the opinion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a "sentiment", rather than an opinion held by, among others, the current Attorney General of the United States.
To characterize the opinions of those who differ from one's own point of view as mere "sentiment" is to betray an dishonest and tendentious approach to argument.
You characterize the NRA as a special interest working to secure its financial well being. I don't see how the ACLU-Mass is not equally a special interest working to secure its financial well being and lying in order to do so.
Then there is your irresponsible charge that the NRA perpetuates "a seemingly endless cycle of gun-related fatalities". Just what exactly, if anything, does that phrase mean? To me the lies of the ACLU seem endless. May I say you engage in seemingly endless lies? And what is cyclical about gun related fatalities?
Finally you give vent to what you would call a "sentiment" and one which is at best unsubstantiated and which is, at worst, arguably meaningless. You write:
The ACLU of Massachusetts believes effective gun control—especially of handguns and assault weapons—is essential to curbing the escalating violence in our society.
At least you approach candor when you characterize this as a belief. Have you any evidence to support the contention that "effective gun control" would curb the "escalating violence in our society"?
Isn't it the case that until recently the incidence of violence was on a decline in our country? Of course, in our history there has never been an uncurbed escalation of violence. Even when violence was escalating, there were curbs in place.
If anything, the recent rise in violent crime followed stricter gun control laws. What, then leads you to believe that stricter laws would lead to a decline in gun violence?
But you don't say "stricter laws", you say "effective gun control". So your final statement comes down to an unverifiable because unfalsifiable, assertion. You define effective gun control laws as ones which "curb the escalation of violence" and then, until violence ceases you can say that the current laws are ineffective. It's a tautology and it amounts to "laws which curb violence will curb violence".
So what kind of person uses such a tautology in a piece of expository prose? Either a person unable to reason or a person who intends to deceive. In either case, the ACLU and this piece of prose are, in the strict sense of the words, despicable and full of lies.