chairboy...ACLU

[lazs2]

In another thread you calimed that the ACLU was, like it or not, their to protect our liberties...

You implied that they were courageous because they faought unpopular fights...

I would refute that by pointing to their stance on gun control... from their own site..

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

they claim that they believe that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual one... but the states for a state controled miulitia... or they claim they do.... they do not acknowledge that "the people" then means "the state" in 16 other place in the constitution.... or.... maybe that is what they really are after??

Their stance is in direct conflict with every other study (like the DOJ report) that affirms it is an individual ritght..

They justify this cowardice by saying that if they admitted that it was an individual right (it is) then they would have to defend against any infrigement and say that people could own "machine guns".... they did until 1934 with not problem... or "cannons and bazookas"  they did until 1968 with no problems...

They as much as admit that they are afraid to really address the issue...

They site miller 1939 as being a supreme court ruling that gives the right to bear arms only to state controled militia..

This is an outright lie... I can't believe they made such a whopper up and don't expect people to catch em on it!  

Miller decision said that a sawed off shotgun was not a tool that could be used(wrong) by the  militia (every able bodied man) and so it could be banned or "infringed" (licenced).

I have taken this stuff right off their website... this  is the cowardly nature of the ACLU and perhaps a little proof that agenda is much more important than justice law to them.

lazs

[Charon]

I agree with 90 percent of what the ACLU does, since it supports a more libertarian individual rights perspective. But there is obviously a certain degree of true liberalism in the organization as well. Some individual rights are more important than others.

Charon

[lazs2]

charon... my point is that their liberalism and agenda seems to make them dishonest.

I think it taints every thing they do.  I don't think that they ever defend anyuthing without keeping their agenda in mind.... as such... they can't even touch the second... there is nothing at all for them there.

I find it hypocritical in the extreme.  

To make myself clear... I do not mind them haveing an agenda... what I mind is their basic and pervading dishonesty about it.

an example of the big lie is that they took some kind of vote and decided that they didn't like the second or think it was an individual right so they don't help anyone yet... in the same breath they claim that they take unpopular stances on other issues even tho they don't belive in them...   the point is that they must admit that it is at least (actually certain) debateable that the second guarentees an iondividual right and... absolutely certain that people the people fighting their infringment believe it...

it is at best.... a cowardly stance and at worse... a lieing hypocritical one with an controling agenda.

lazs

[midnight Target]

Miller decision said that a sawed off shotgun was not a tool that could be used(wrong) by the militia (every able bodied man) and so it could be banned or "infringed" (licenced).

The basic premis of the Miller decision is that the Militia is the key. This has never been overturned nor has any law restricting the sale of guns ever been overturned on 2nd amendment grounds. Point being, people of good conscience can and do disagree on the 2nd and it's meaning.

[Toad]

Exactly.

From Miller:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

So it IS quite clear that all males phsically capable of acting in concert for the common defense are entitled to keep and bear arms of the kind in use for common military use at the time.

Very difficult to see how there could be any disageement on this considering the Miller ruling.

Obviously, there is disagreement but I don't think "good conscience" enters into it.

[lazs2]

sorry MT you are wrong... miller (he was dead) lost his right to carry a sawed off shotgun because....

There was no representation for him... only the government (treasury, now ATF) was represented...   All questions were addressed to them... the government lied flat out when questioned... the supreme court asked "is it true that a sawed off shotgun has no military use?"   the government lied and said no... they had never and could never be used as such.

While both sides claim miller as a victory.... most agree that militia was not the issue but the issue of could the guns in question be considered useful to one.

There was no attempt to define militia in the ruling.  The ruling only said that if the gun was useless in a military setting (or to a milita, "the people") then it could be licenced (infringed upon).

those who believe in individual rights look at miller as a victory in that it affirms that effective arms are needed for a militia but.... we find it disturbing that the supreme court was so wrong on the fact that short barreled shotguns were not used...or....

worse yet... the real issue of the 34 tax act was not addressed (purposely all will agree) and that was.... shotguns were not the only weapon on the list... machine guns and silencers were also and.... using the supremes own logic.... they are indeed very useful for the militia (the people).

in any case.... anyone can see that there is a lot more for the ACLU to grab hold of here if they desired than there is for some of the causes that they really go out on a limb to espouse.


lazs

[Gunslinger]

I have a problem with the ACLU because they are not indescriminent in the cases they fight.  They seem to Allways go after the Boy Scouts and Christianity among other things

I am not at all completly against them because occasionally they do take up cases to help both of the previously mentioned establishments.  

If they were a true "civil liberties" organization they would be blind as to what liberties they are protecting just like justice.

[lazs2]

oops... toad was writing as I was.... He quoted the pertinent passage so I don't need to.

As you can see.... it is considered a victory for the champions of the right to keep and bear arms.

The reason so many who are happy to endlessly debate and rule on the slightest nuance of every amendment... the reason they shy from what the second really says is....

Because what it says is irrefuteable... it is an individual right and would negate thousands of government workers and negate over 20,000 gun control laws and fines and regulators...  The government fears an armed populace...  the police who are amoung us do not fear an armed population... the people don't fear armed neigbors.... who is the government protecting?

And... as to the ACLU.... I rest my case... they are smart enough to know but they are dishonest and agendized.

lazs

[Chairboy]

I don't like everything the ACLU does, but I think that's healthy.  If they only did what I wanted, then that would indicate that they were representing a specific political viewpoint and would be no different from any other lobbying group.

For example, I disagree with any statements they make that seek to limit gun possession, but I'm still a member because I agree with lots of other things they do.

As far as I can tell, the only times they scuffle with Christianity or the Boy Scouts (to respond to GS) is when those groups attempt to create public policy or use government funds for religion or operate in a method that attacks civil rights.  In the US Christian view, there seems to be a prevailing opinion that while everyone is equal, US Christians are more equal than others.

[lazs2]

guns is correct so far as why most of us look at them as a cowardly and hypocritical organization with an agenda.

What makes them liars and hypocrits is the way they justify not defending some rights.   They simply don't have the integrety or courage to admit it....   A group that dishonest is well..... not to be trusted.

lazs

[Toad]

Miler vs US,  Decided MAY 15, 1939

And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

World War I - 1918 Winchester Modely 97 Trench gun





World War II - 1941 Browning A-5 Short barreled shotgun

 

VietNam - 1960's Winchester Modle 12 Trench gun

 

First well known military use of shotguns is dated back to the Great War (1st World War), when Allied forces used various pump-action and self-loading shotguns in the trench warfare.

During the 2nd World War shotguns were used as a security weapons (for guarding and anti-riot purposes), for close combat in jungle environments of SE Asia, where the self-loading shotguns (like the Remington 11 and Auto-5 - both of Browning design) proved to be very valuable for their devastating short-range firepower. The shotguns were also used for aerial gunnery training.

Vietnam war also seen many shotguns used by US troops in the jungles, but these were mostly pump-action shotguns.

It's obvious Miller was wrongly decided. Well, to anyone with an open mind.

[midnight Target]

Miller was wrongly decided because the gun COULD be used by a militia? This is really funny Toad. The question was still asked "is this a militia weapon?" The fact that it was a militia weapon doesn't change the fact that Miller does not uphold individual rights to bear arms.


The key here is the MILITIA, not the gun.

[lazs2]

mt... you are being dense...  The judges knew nothing of firearms and the government (BATF) expoited this since they had no case.... they had earlier lost the case since the federal judge who had earlier upheld millers second amendment rights owned a machine gun "war trophy" he had brought home and was in his closet..

The BATF lied (the first of endless lies) to the judge and claimed that sawed off shotguns had never been used by any military and had no military value so.... Could not be construed as being protected under the second amendment..

Two things are interesting about this... the law an34 that infringed upon the rights of miller did not just concern sawn off shotguns... it was machine guns and silencers too.

At this point.... people had ignored the law and even the supreme court was unaware of it till this case.   The supremes wrongly gave a decision based on a lie and did not address machine guns or silencers in the ruling....

The only thing they said was that if a gun was useless to a militia then it enjoyed no second amendment rights.

Towd is right but the guns he shows all have legal length barrels (I own a 97 trench gun)... the revolutionary war and civil war had shotguns the same length as millers tho.

lazs

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lazs2
The only thing they said was that if a gun was useless to a militia then it enjoyed no second amendment rights.


lazs

Yep... I rest my case.

They didn't ask if the gun was useless to an Individual, just to a Militia.

[lazs2]

MT... I think that your post is proof that it is a bad idea to base your arguements on only reading one side of an issue.

You read only the views of those who consider miller a victory... It actually is a victory but not in the way that you think..

The victory for the gun control guys is a simple one... miller affirmed that infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms could be impossed.... but only on very narrow and distinct grounds.... only if it could be proven that such arms had no military value at all.... that is really what the miller decison was about.

lazs