7 ms·

I honestly think they were compromised from the very beginning, with their mission of "defending every civil right... except the 2nd amendment, we don't like th

I honestly think they were compromised from the very beginning, with their mission of "defending every civil right... except the 2nd amendment, we don't like that one." But they still fought lots of commendable battles, sticking up for people that nobody else would. I think that's what they've lost... they would be scared to stick up for somebody that might get the wrong people upset with them.

mjmahone17 5y ago
It’s probably reasonable for an organization to choose not to conflate the civil liberties they stand for with amendments. In an ideal world the people would happily eliminate or modify laws that do harm, and of the existing US civil liberties, the 2nd amendment is likely the most debatable on whether it is a net win for liberty.
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  The American Civil Liberties Approved by Left Wing Twitter Mobs Union has a nice ring to it.
- vmception 5y ago
  Even the most extreme proponents of the 2nd amendment have examples of it working The various police forces during the capital seige - in January, remember how that was this year - said they used less force because the participants were armed and knew they could shoot back Their whole thing is that they will make the state think twice, whereas the peaceful and unarmed protestors get knocked around with no recourse Without examples, its easy to think they are advocating for actually killing government officials with their guns in order to get their way, but after a year of examples I can at least say I have experienced competing and conflicting ideas in action
  - Retric 5y ago
    The ACLU’s mission isn’t about defending the constitution, plenty of other organizations step up for that. Their scope includes all those liberties which don’t show up on the constitution which is a much larger issue. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as” Many people just have a problem with word except on that line and so many other places in society. As such the ACLU’s goal is to push for improvements not simply defend the current situation.
  - drewrv 5y ago
    I don’t buy this argument. One of the reasons police are quicker to open fire on people here in the US is because so many people have guns. Countries with fewer guns have fewer armed police officers and fewer policemen shootings.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Yes, fire on individuals, not on groups. These are separate issues. All Americans experience a collective punishment from law enforcement because they might have "a" gun on them.
  - javagram 5y ago
    > The various police forces during the capital seige - in January, remember how that was this year - said they used less force because the participants were armed and knew they could shoot back I think this is mostly inaccurate? The Jan 6 protestors/rioters mostly left their guns at home due to fear of D.C.‘s strict gun laws. Even the oathkeepers planned to keep their guns in Virginia and ferry them over by boat only once “called up as militia”. The Capitol police are used to dealing with protestors and demonstrators and have never opened fire on a crowd with live ammo before. The one time it did look like a rioter (Ashlii Babbit) was going to get too close to members of Congress they used their firearm without hesitation.
    - vmception 5y ago
      DC Metro Police were also there If I find the quotes again from officer(s) interviews I’ll link you
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    Oh wow second amendment rights make it more easy for right wing extremists to overthrow our democracy? Surely the bastion of personal liberty!
    - vmception 5y ago
      And also left wing extremists, secessionists, centrists, people afraid of 5G Americans have guns Right wingers showed up with them and then said it was left wingers, who do also own them
- briandear 5y ago
  Liberty is a result of the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment ensures there remains a 1st. Disarming a population is the first act of tyranny. Check the history books for countless examples. The Soviets, the Nazis, the Communist Chinese, and on and on — they all had gun control as a key early policy.
mindslight 5y ago
With this new trajectory, they could end up picking up the 2nd amendment by fighting for justice for Breonna Taylor. The NRA seems to have dropped the ball.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Unless I am confusing cases Breonna Taylor did not shoot at the police or even have a gun.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    Taylor's boyfriend was defending his home against intruders, in line with his second amendment rights. Rather than backing off, the police used this as justification to escalate their attack. "No knock" warrants are fundamentally incompatible with an armed citizenry, and are therefore a 2A issue.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      I understand that, but Taylor was not accused of anything related to guns. I am not sure why the NRA should get involved with anything related to her. The charges against her boyfriend were dropped so they couldn't defend him if they wanted to. I do think if gun related charges are brought against him again the NRA should defend him.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        Taylor was killed because her boyfriend exercised his second amendment rights. There are no charges to contest, because the police on the scene acted as judge, jury, and executioner. That there aren't charges against the extrajudicial killers ("murderers") to be litigated is exactly the problem. The NRA does plenty of activism that doesn't involve defending people against charges, but for this incident they've been silent. For comparison, here is a statement that was put out by Gun Owners of America: https://www.gunowners.org/goa-speaks-out-after-no-knock-raid-leaves-resident-dead-officer-wounded/ https://www.gunowners.org/goa-speaks-out-after-no-knock-raid... . IMO it doesn't go far enough, condemning the general practice but failing to condemn the specific murderers, but at least they've said something.
this2shallPass 5y ago
I have far from an encyclopedic knowledge of the ACLU and it's history, so I could be wrong. I had thought they have in the past done some 2nd amendment cases, and continue to do so. Their position is less strong, maximalist, whatever you want to call it than some other groups e.g. the NRA. They also don't see the need to focus a lot of resources on those types of cases when other groups do that, and effectively.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  My recollection is they distanced themselves from gun rights cases after defending some right-wing group's right to hold an armed protest... at which one of the group members murdered a counter protestor.
  - briandear 5y ago
    Exempt that protestor wasn’t killed by a gun. Yet surprisingly, the ACLU hasn’t come out against the automobile.
    - seattle_spring 5y ago
      Wow crazy! It's almost as if almost every adult American uses a car on a daily basis to support themselves, while an absolutely miniscule amount of Americans need to use a gun even once in their lifetimes.
JohnTHaller 5y ago
"ACLU Position: Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right." https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment
- akvadrako 5y ago
  That's a pretty stupid position, since it's pretty clear the 2nd amendment is saying that it's a right of "the people". The preface is to explain the reason it's a right, that is to form the Militia, which is commonly understood to consist of most able-bodied men. If individuals aren't allowed to own and practice with weapons normally, then when it's needed the Militia will not be "well-regulated", as in well-armed or trained. The 2nd amendment is really very important to all civil liberties, since otherwise there is nothing to stop a repressive government from taking control.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    Look, you're entitled to interpret the 2nd amendment the way you do, but the fact is that it is a short bit of text and yet it includes the words "a well regulated militia." It's perfectly reasonable to believe those four words are there for a good reason. Gun rights activists choose to ignore those words. If their position deserve any respect, the one that does not ignore them evidently deserves at least as much.
    - calvinmorrison 5y ago
      Its interesting to look at my States constitution, which predates the federal constitution. " Sect. XXI. That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned. "
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      You're being obtuse; I explained why those words were there.

mjmahone17 5y ago

It’s probably reasonable for an organization to choose not to conflate the civil liberties they stand for with amendments. In an ideal world the people would happily eliminate or modify laws that do harm, and of the existing US civil liberties, the 2nd amendment is likely the most debatable on whether it is a net win for liberty.

gotoeleven 5y ago
The American Civil Liberties Approved by Left Wing Twitter Mobs Union has a nice ring to it.
vmception 5y ago
Even the most extreme proponents of the 2nd amendment have examples of it working The various police forces during the capital seige - in January, remember how that was this year - said they used less force because the participants were armed and knew they could shoot back Their whole thing is that they will make the state think twice, whereas the peaceful and unarmed protestors get knocked around with no recourse Without examples, its easy to think they are advocating for actually killing government officials with their guns in order to get their way, but after a year of examples I can at least say I have experienced competing and conflicting ideas in action
- Retric 5y ago
  The ACLU’s mission isn’t about defending the constitution, plenty of other organizations step up for that. Their scope includes all those liberties which don’t show up on the constitution which is a much larger issue. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as” Many people just have a problem with word except on that line and so many other places in society. As such the ACLU’s goal is to push for improvements not simply defend the current situation.
- drewrv 5y ago
  I don’t buy this argument. One of the reasons police are quicker to open fire on people here in the US is because so many people have guns. Countries with fewer guns have fewer armed police officers and fewer policemen shootings.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Yes, fire on individuals, not on groups. These are separate issues. All Americans experience a collective punishment from law enforcement because they might have "a" gun on them.
- javagram 5y ago
  > The various police forces during the capital seige - in January, remember how that was this year - said they used less force because the participants were armed and knew they could shoot back I think this is mostly inaccurate? The Jan 6 protestors/rioters mostly left their guns at home due to fear of D.C.‘s strict gun laws. Even the oathkeepers planned to keep their guns in Virginia and ferry them over by boat only once “called up as militia”. The Capitol police are used to dealing with protestors and demonstrators and have never opened fire on a crowd with live ammo before. The one time it did look like a rioter (Ashlii Babbit) was going to get too close to members of Congress they used their firearm without hesitation.
  - vmception 5y ago
    DC Metro Police were also there If I find the quotes again from officer(s) interviews I’ll link you
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  Oh wow second amendment rights make it more easy for right wing extremists to overthrow our democracy? Surely the bastion of personal liberty!
  - vmception 5y ago
    And also left wing extremists, secessionists, centrists, people afraid of 5G Americans have guns Right wingers showed up with them and then said it was left wingers, who do also own them
briandear 5y ago
Liberty is a result of the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment ensures there remains a 1st. Disarming a population is the first act of tyranny. Check the history books for countless examples. The Soviets, the Nazis, the Communist Chinese, and on and on — they all had gun control as a key early policy.

mindslight 5y ago

With this new trajectory, they could end up picking up the 2nd amendment by fighting for justice for Breonna Taylor. The NRA seems to have dropped the ball.

_-david-_ 5y ago
Unless I am confusing cases Breonna Taylor did not shoot at the police or even have a gun.
- mindslight 5y ago
  Taylor's boyfriend was defending his home against intruders, in line with his second amendment rights. Rather than backing off, the police used this as justification to escalate their attack. "No knock" warrants are fundamentally incompatible with an armed citizenry, and are therefore a 2A issue.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    I understand that, but Taylor was not accused of anything related to guns. I am not sure why the NRA should get involved with anything related to her. The charges against her boyfriend were dropped so they couldn't defend him if they wanted to. I do think if gun related charges are brought against him again the NRA should defend him.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      Taylor was killed because her boyfriend exercised his second amendment rights. There are no charges to contest, because the police on the scene acted as judge, jury, and executioner. That there aren't charges against the extrajudicial killers ("murderers") to be litigated is exactly the problem. The NRA does plenty of activism that doesn't involve defending people against charges, but for this incident they've been silent. For comparison, here is a statement that was put out by Gun Owners of America: https://www.gunowners.org/goa-speaks-out-after-no-knock-raid-leaves-resident-dead-officer-wounded/ https://www.gunowners.org/goa-speaks-out-after-no-knock-raid... . IMO it doesn't go far enough, condemning the general practice but failing to condemn the specific murderers, but at least they've said something.

this2shallPass 5y ago

I have far from an encyclopedic knowledge of the ACLU and it's history, so I could be wrong. I had thought they have in the past done some 2nd amendment cases, and continue to do so. Their position is less strong, maximalist, whatever you want to call it than some other groups e.g. the NRA. They also don't see the need to focus a lot of resources on those types of cases when other groups do that, and effectively.

seoaeu 5y ago
My recollection is they distanced themselves from gun rights cases after defending some right-wing group's right to hold an armed protest... at which one of the group members murdered a counter protestor.
- briandear 5y ago
  Exempt that protestor wasn’t killed by a gun. Yet surprisingly, the ACLU hasn’t come out against the automobile.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    Wow crazy! It's almost as if almost every adult American uses a car on a daily basis to support themselves, while an absolutely miniscule amount of Americans need to use a gun even once in their lifetimes.

JohnTHaller 5y ago

"ACLU Position: Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right." https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment

akvadrako 5y ago
That's a pretty stupid position, since it's pretty clear the 2nd amendment is saying that it's a right of "the people". The preface is to explain the reason it's a right, that is to form the Militia, which is commonly understood to consist of most able-bodied men. If individuals aren't allowed to own and practice with weapons normally, then when it's needed the Militia will not be "well-regulated", as in well-armed or trained. The 2nd amendment is really very important to all civil liberties, since otherwise there is nothing to stop a repressive government from taking control.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  Look, you're entitled to interpret the 2nd amendment the way you do, but the fact is that it is a short bit of text and yet it includes the words "a well regulated militia." It's perfectly reasonable to believe those four words are there for a good reason. Gun rights activists choose to ignore those words. If their position deserve any respect, the one that does not ignore them evidently deserves at least as much.
  - calvinmorrison 5y ago
    Its interesting to look at my States constitution, which predates the federal constitution. " Sect. XXI. That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned. "
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    You're being obtuse; I explained why those words were there.