They reveal themselves for the marxists that they are. Which is exactly what Obama is too.
Posted on 07/03/2008 10:33:37 AM PDT by jim_trent
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.
Ironically, the ACLU was never about protecting civil rights such as self defense and owning firearms.
It’s just “yet another” red diaper baby front organization that tries to mask its Communist Revolutionary goals inside a “patriotic American” facade.
The Federalist Papers states without equivocation that the 2nd amendment was designed to PROTECT us from a well-armed militia under the control of a despot.
What is this “collective” right cr@p? Is the 1st amendment a collective right too? What about the 5th?
They reveal themselves for the marxists that they are. Which is exactly what Obama is too.
The American Civil Liberties Union: Fighting for YOUR civil liberties....um, well.... for the civil liberties WE think you should have.
While I see the ACLU as a collective group of liberal @-holes, I see each individual member of the ACLU as a liberal @-hole.
Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . .
Do you have a cite on that? I am not doubting the veracity, I would like to use the cite in debates with leftists.
The ACLU needs to be shut down. today. Or better yet, tomorrow.
Yes, one of the Amendments reserves powers to the several states (those not delegated to the Federal Government)-- but those are sovereign powers rather than rights.
What is a collective right? And does a militia need to be sanctioned by a state government to be "legitimate?"
Losers
That is why I am not a member. They ARE right on every aspect of the Constitution except the 2nd Amendment (their white-wine spritzer sipping, PC, effette sissy membership can’t dare be offended).
Demonstration of intellectual cowardice and dishonest.
Heller is the greatest triumph of individual rights in a coon’s age and these idiots are on the outside.
Poetic justice.
“the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation,”......
And there you have the ACLU’s mode of operation in two words....”future litigation” to undermine our liberties as granted by the founding fathers. These radical whack jobs will twist and bend everything to promote socialism legally in the courts so they can then say: “It’s the law!...you must obey it!” Damn! I hate them!....
Good, we need this stand for the election.
They will fight for any sexual related rights. They favor unlimited sexual freedom, and want to lower age of consent to age 12. Other things, like gun rights, they aren’t as “liberal” to argue for a person’s clear unfettered rights to guns.
A “collective” right is a way of saying that the thing being described is not in fact a right, while pretending to say that it is.
On the other hand, if you happen to run across any groups of 30 or so people fused together I guess you can call them a “collective.” Otherwise, we are all individuals and there are only individual rights or no rights.
Only if those 1st and 5th Amendment rights are exercised in an un-PC manner.
This case and the ACLU's reaction to it illustrate, as has nothing before, the utter fraud that the ACLU is and always has been. It was and is nothing but a Leftist front organization masquerading as a "civil rights" group. I've heard that it is losing a fair number of members over this issue, and that warms the cockles of my heart like few other things.
The basic, inherent human rights protected in the main body of the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights are not a buffet where you can pick and choose what you like and toss the rest: they are an all-or-nothing proposition. The most brilliant thing about the Constitution is that it can be amended if enough people think that such would be proper.
So I have a challenge for the red diaper doper babies at the ACLU: grow a pair and propose an amendment that negates the 2nd Amendment and with it the Heller decision. Until then ACLU, kindly do the American People a huge favor and STFU.
Thre are some wonderful citations in the opinion which can be used for discussions with liberals. Some of them come from the Stevens opinion in which he misinterprets history or the citation.
They are right about separation of church and state?
They are right that Osama would have the right to a fair and speedy trial?
They are right about partial birth abortion?
Are you sure you clicked the right bookmark?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
