The headline is a little dramatic. > "We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not people who want to carry weapons and are intent on comm

The headline is a little dramatic. > "We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not people who want to carry weapons and are intent on committing violence," That's a little clearer regarding the intent. It's not the right to keep and bear arms that they necessarily have a problem with, it's the agenda of these people who would be their clients. It's still a shift from what I would expect from the ACLU, but they're free to draw a line somewhere. To be fair, there are limits on free speech and the violence involved might be a useful consideration if there's future litigation over protest permits. Maybe ACLU doesn't want to go to bat for an odious client only to set a new test/precedent that works against other would-be clients. EDIT: sorry, I realize now that your response is to the comment regarding being armed while protesting.