This is a decent demonstration of how I understand the ACLU to act. They support court decisions on bill of rights issues. Much like they are not championing the pedophiles in the library case, they are not championing gun owners in this one. The case in point has to do with privacy in general and also happens to benefits 2A people in this example. I made my previous post because there seem to be some people in this thread who honestly believe the ALCU is made up of communist boogymen who pursue nothing other than trying to remove the second amendment, and that is simply a false statement. Many of the rights we enjoy in our modern life are based on court cases supported by the ACLU, and it is pretty short sighted to label the entire organization as a horrible group because you disagree on a singular issue.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
An interesting take on the NRA.
- Thread starter PaulD
- Start date
This is a decent demonstration of how I understand the ACLU to act. They support court decisions on bill of rights issues. Much like they are not championing the pedophiles in the library case, they are not championing gun owners in this one. The case in point has to do with privacy in general and also happens to benefits 2A people in this example. I made my previous post because there seem to be some people in this thread who honestly believe the ALCU is made up of communist boogymen who pursue nothing other than trying to remove the second amendment, and that is simply a false statement. Many of the rights we enjoy in our modern life are based on court cases supported by the ACLU, and it is pretty short sighted to label the entire organization as a horrible group because you disagree on a singular issue.
They are horrible, just because a case may be good for multiple reasons (I.e. The GPS tracking) doesn't change their overall agenda; the destruction of American institutions from within. Hence why they support what the cases they do.
They were formed by Communists, that is a fact and not short sighted and the goal hasn't changed. They truly are some of the "enemies within".
You really have to examine why they hold the position they do on the 2nd amendment, what kind of philosophy does not support firearm ownership by the public?
Last edited:
Do you really need to ask that? Well here is one, their favorite target Christmas.
Yes, I really need to ask. There is a difference between saying that a government shouldn't put forward a faith and targeting Christmas. I'm someone who thinks the ACLU has done good things, but I'm not closed minded. Prove me wrong, show me the terrible things they do, and I'll be happy to adjust my thoughts on them.
- The ACLU of Texas (2011) filed a brief in support of students in the Plano school district who wanted to include Christian messages in their holiday gift bags.
- The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district.
- The ACLU of Rhode Island (2003) interceded on behalf of an interdenominational group of carolers who were told they could not sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women’s prison in Cranston, Rhode Island.
- The ACLU of Massachusetts (2002) filed a brief supporting the right of the Church of the Good News to run ads criticizing the secularization of Christmas and promoting Christianity as the “one true religion.” The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority had refused to allow the paid advertisements to be posted and refused to sell additional advertising space to the church.
- The ACLU of Virginia (1999) represented Rita Warren and her right to erect a crèche on Fairfax County government space that had been set aside as a public forum. The ACLU argued that restricting the use of the public forum to county residents only was an unreasonable restriction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
- The ACLU of Massachusetts(1996) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on behalf of two women who were fired for refusing, on religious grounds, to work at a racetrack on Christmas Day.
Great, support them if you wish. I choose to support the ACRU and other conservative groups.
Putting up a manger, menorah whatever is not a violation of the 1a, even though they think it is.
http://www.wnd.com/2003/11/21910/
The Colorado ACLU is threatening to sue a school if the principal refuses to censor Christmas for its students.
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/21/nevada-school-bans-saying-merry-christmas-after-aclu-complaint/
Teachers at Virgin Valley High School are reportedly not allowed to post any religious Christmas decorations, and are prohibited from engaging in other Christmas activities as part of an agreement with the Nevada American Civil Liberties Union, according to Alliance Defense Fund attorney David Cortman.
Louisiana, 2004. The ACLU sues the Bossier Parish public school system for displaying a Nativity scene and holding a teacher-led prayer group.
Colorado, 2003. The ACLU and the Anti-Defamation League send a letter to the Elbert County charter school alleging Jewish students "no longer feel safe or welcome there." The parents represented by the ACLU had earlier demanded the school take all traditional Christmas songs, including "Frosty the Snowman" and "Jingle Bells," out of the school's holiday program.
Massachusetts, 2001. The ACLU threatens to sue Balch elementary school to prevent it from displaying a Nativity scene.
Georgia, 2001. Bowing to the ACLU's complaint that using the word in its calendar was "an endorsement of a particular religion," the Newton County school board removes "Christmas."
New York, 1998. The ACLU represents a family of atheists that complains the Gowanda public schools allow religious songs at school events. Two of the songs to which the family objects are "White Christmas" and "God Bless America." Earlier, the schools had tried accommodating the family by changing Christmas break to winter break.
Illinois, 1995. The ACLU sends a letter to the state urging Christmas carols not be played at Chicago's James R. Thompson Center. "Broadcasting sectarian hymns into public areas of the Center . . . is sponsoring religious expression," charges the ACLU. The state stops the carols for a week, but finally figures out it isn't violating the law and resumes them.
New Jersey, 1993. The ACLU sues the Cherry Hill School District for permitting the display of a Christmas tree, a Chanukah menorah and a Kwanzaa candelabra. The policy "blatantly disregards the guarantee of separation of church and state," according to the ACLU.
Utah, 1992. The ACLU demands a Nativity scene at South Fremont High School be removed. The scene's figures are only about two inches high, but they're big enough to merit the ACLU's concerns.
Indiana's ACLU executive director says extremists have attempted to demonize the organization. I say the ACLU has demonized and discredited itself by its aversion to religion.
Etc etc etc
Last edited:
Thanks for providing the examples. I agree that most of those are way overboard, but I also notice they have to do with the government (local/state) having a hand in the expression of religion (however minor). I'm not sure the idea of affirming the separation of church and state is the destruction of America. As my list points out, they also take the side of individuals who are getting the shaft for expressing their beliefs. For example, I believe they had a hand in not having to use sick time for religious holidays. From their POV, more cases (win or lose) means a more detailed body of cases that further describe the nitty gritty details of the relevant laws. I completely agree that their 2A stance sucks, but it seems they have changed their tune in light of the Heller case. I'm glad there is a general pro-rights group you support, even if you think the ACLU is up to no good.
edited to add:
That's probably my fault, I'll stopjasons said:
The article does make a comparison of the NRA to the ACLU and recommends the NRA study the ACLU's methods. So the ACLU debate isn't really bothering me too much, even if serves to distract from the original topic.
I will say to all of you blathering on about the ACLU, you really are missing the point which is about tactics, not the political underpinnings of the organization.
But the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, makes a case on YouTube that Law Enforcement, has the right to carry and why is that right denied to ordinary citizens? Well, Wayne you'd have to turn your gun in at five o'clock. Nice try but instead of wasting good rhetoric on bad arguments perhaps you could come up with some very serious points to support our 2nd amendment right to bear arms and keep gun ownership private and personal.![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
But the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, makes a case on YouTube that Law Enforcement, has the right to carry and why is that right denied to ordinary citizens? Well, Wayne you'd have to turn your gun in at five o'clock. Nice try but instead of wasting good rhetoric on bad arguments perhaps you could come up with some very serious points to support our 2nd amendment right to bear arms and keep gun ownership private and personal.
What are you talking about? In what jurisdiction do the police have turn in their guns after their shift? Much deference (wrongly, I add) is given in laws to exempt off duty and retired LEO's that apply to the general citizenry.
But the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, makes a case on YouTube that Law Enforcement, has the right to carry and why is that right denied to ordinary citizens? Well, Wayne you'd have to turn your gun in at five o'clock. Nice try but instead of wasting good rhetoric on bad arguments perhaps you could come up with some very serious points to support our 2nd amendment right to bear arms and keep gun ownership private and personal.
Doesn't LEOSA allow law enforcement officers, including qualified retired officers, to conceal carry throughout the country?
Certainly in MA, an officer is going to have a far easier time getting an unrestricted LTC-A than the average citizen.
193rdsoldier
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,174
- Likes
- 1,139
I don't know you, but I like you haha
I think I butt posted, not aware of a deliberate post. My bad..!
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
I'd say most of that blog is horseshit, with a little bullshit thrown in for flavor.
The "appear to poor, urban, non-whites" seems silly. The NRA exists to represent gun owners. Most urban people are anti-gun liberals, and most poor people can't afford to buy a gun. There's a reason the NRA is mostly rural, middle or upper class, people.
The "appear to poor, urban, non-whites" seems silly. The NRA exists to represent gun owners. Most urban people are anti-gun liberals, and most poor people can't afford to buy a gun. There's a reason the NRA is mostly rural, middle or upper class, people.
