Anti-ACLU Rant of the Week 4/21/05

Giving time over to Jay777 and the Stop the ACLU Blog:
This week's topic is one near and dear to me: The ACLU's take on the Second Amendment.

When the Founding Fathers established the Bill of Rights, look at the first two things they took into consideration:

First, the ability to assemble and speak your mind in public, even when it is in opposition to the government's policies!

Second, the ability to defend your opinions (and the other stipulations posited in the First Amendment) against an armed government instrument (something quite common in 17th- and 18th-Century Europe)

Of course, these two pillars of American society worked well, until the ACLU came along.

We know the ACLU's views on free speech, so I won't beat that dead horse here.

Let's look at the ACLU's views on the Second Amendment:

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

(snip)

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.

Hmmm,... a "collective" right? "Collective" is a well-used Socialist buzzword.

(snip)

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Define "reasonable regulations," please. I think the following portion will show you where the ACLU sits on this one:

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

Ri-i-ing! Hello? Big Brother is calling! "Lawful police and military purposes?" This flies in the face of multiple legal rulings stating the police collectively protect the public and are not solely responsible for the welfare of individuals. That said, this is the true, driving force of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

And the ACLU's interpretation?

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."

Their basis for this argument?
The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue.

1939?? What year is it now? (TM checks the calendar...) Oh, yeah, 2005!

Surely there must be another ruling out there:

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain
meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in
their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of
a select militia or performing active military service or training."
Fifth Circuit of Appeals 2001


AH-H-H-H,..that's closer to modern-day society.

"The only modern case?" I did some research (So did Jay777,..hat tip) and found 30-plus Appellate and Supreme Court opinions on the Second Amendment.


Again,...the ACLU needs to be stopped! They are chiseling away at our rights and freedoms on at a time! They are the "Iron Fist Inside the Velvet Glove!"

I end this rant quoting Thomas Jefferson again:

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." --Thomas Jefferson

Another hat-tip to Jay777 (a fellow follower of TJ) for finding that quote!

As always, the anti-ACLU gang is: