3 ms·

Aiming guns at people is already illegal under brandishing laws. The ACLU has refused to support any armed demonstration

whatshisface 6y ago
That's an interesting example of how partisan-seeming biases can develop inadvertently. There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations, but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests, so in practice this only cancels support for one side. Reminds me of the "anyone is equally free to marry a person of the opposite gender" response to gay people having the same rights. The ACLU may or may not want to support armed demonstrations, but if they want "docket diversity," they'd pragmatically have to loosen that rule, perhaps to "we don't support demonstrations where weapons were fired," or even, "we defend demonstrators in all cases except when they admit to specifically trying to shoot someone," or something like that.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations, but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests, so in practice this only cancels support for one side. is this true? I can think of at least one recent event in kenosha where people on both "sides" had guns.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    It's mostly true... so far. Although some elements of antifa are perfectly willing to use projectile weapons. Those are less dangerous than guns, but they aren't nothing.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  > but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests NFAC [1], Pro-BLM Protestors in Austin [2] and that was after a protestor brandished his AK at an uber driver and the uber driver shot him (so we had armed protestors before that as well). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition [2] https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/austin-protests-police-dps-troopers-increasing/269-1f15b131-142e-4407-b2bc-387189b0372f https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/austin-prot...
- bmelton 6y ago
  > There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations They flatly do not believe that firearm ownership is an individual right, rather that it is a collective right. This used to be plainly displayed on their website, but I'm having troubles finding it now, and perhaps that narrative has been challenged internally as certain chapters of the ACLU (Nevada comes to mind) have begun recognizing it as an individual right. Moreover, arms rights challenges that could spur ACLU action haven't ever really come to fruition, such as a ban on arms sales to individuals on the no-fly list for example.

whatshisface 6y ago

That's an interesting example of how partisan-seeming biases can develop inadvertently. There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations, but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests, so in practice this only cancels support for one side. Reminds me of the "anyone is equally free to marry a person of the opposite gender" response to gay people having the same rights. The ACLU may or may not want to support armed demonstrations, but if they want "docket diversity," they'd pragmatically have to loosen that rule, perhaps to "we don't support demonstrations where weapons were fired," or even, "we defend demonstrators in all cases except when they admit to specifically trying to shoot someone," or something like that.

leetcrew 6y ago
> There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations, but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests, so in practice this only cancels support for one side. is this true? I can think of at least one recent event in kenosha where people on both "sides" had guns.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  It's mostly true... so far. Although some elements of antifa are perfectly willing to use projectile weapons. Those are less dangerous than guns, but they aren't nothing.
vorpalhex 6y ago
> but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests NFAC [1], Pro-BLM Protestors in Austin [2] and that was after a protestor brandished his AK at an uber driver and the uber driver shot him (so we had armed protestors before that as well). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition [2] https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/austin-protests-police-dps-troopers-increasing/269-1f15b131-142e-4407-b2bc-387189b0372f https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/austin-prot...
bmelton 6y ago
> There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations They flatly do not believe that firearm ownership is an individual right, rather that it is a collective right. This used to be plainly displayed on their website, but I'm having troubles finding it now, and perhaps that narrative has been challenged internally as certain chapters of the ACLU (Nevada comes to mind) have begun recognizing it as an individual right. Moreover, arms rights challenges that could spur ACLU action haven't ever really come to fruition, such as a ban on arms sales to individuals on the no-fly list for example.