4 ms·

The NRA is more an arm of the arms industry than it is an organization actually interested in the rights of individual gun owners; for example, they're in favor

The NRA is more an arm of the arms industry than it is an organization actually interested in the rights of individual gun owners; for example, they're in favor of making 3D printed guns illegal. This is good for the industry, but would infringe on the currently recognised rights of individuals. I think the Second Amendment Foundation would be a better example of an organization that actually supports the 2nd. I do think our 2nd amendment rights are slipping away (in the beginning we could own and sell unregulated cannons), but I'm not presuming to tell the ACLU how to spend their time and resources. As noted above, I would appreciate a recognition that their decision to not defend the 2nd is actually political rather than legal in nature, which I believe is pretty obvious.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> As noted above, I would appreciate a recognition that their decision to not defend the 2nd is actually political rather than legal in nature, which I believe is pretty obvious. You're leaving out the third option, practical. There are already well funded, effective organizations defending your interpretation of the Second Amendment. It makes little sense for the ACLU to divert resources to that endeavour as a result, even if they agreed with your political view on the individual vs. collective right to bear arms.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  That would be fine, too! Knowing that the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd, I can choose to support organizations that do in proportion to how much I care about that amendment as opposed to the others. I'm totally cool with that. But practicality is not their stated reason for not defending the 2nd, and if it were their actual reason then I'm not sure what reason they would have to use a legal rationale instead. If their actual reason is politics, it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't want to admit that; it would alienate some people, and make them appear more partisan.

ceejayoz 7y ago

> As noted above, I would appreciate a recognition that their decision to not defend the 2nd is actually political rather than legal in nature, which I believe is pretty obvious. You're leaving out the third option, practical. There are already well funded, effective organizations defending your interpretation of the Second Amendment. It makes little sense for the ACLU to divert resources to that endeavour as a result, even if they agreed with your political view on the individual vs. collective right to bear arms.

blotter_paper 7y ago
That would be fine, too! Knowing that the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd, I can choose to support organizations that do in proportion to how much I care about that amendment as opposed to the others. I'm totally cool with that. But practicality is not their stated reason for not defending the 2nd, and if it were their actual reason then I'm not sure what reason they would have to use a legal rationale instead. If their actual reason is politics, it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't want to admit that; it would alienate some people, and make them appear more partisan.