Hmm. Looks like ACLU is selective in which amendments it will defend.

[tobor]

Their rationale? The second amendment doesn't bestow a "Civil right." Friggin hypocrites.

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/...s20020304.html

[mpi]

you just noticed? they have always bee hypocritical and dishonest in this matter!

[GunLawyer001]

"In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

I can't even imagine a good-faith definition of "civil liberties" under which that statement would be true. NAZI's marching through Skokie is a civil right, going through school without being exposed to anyone praying is a civil right, filthy vagrants terrorizing library patrons with their stench and hostile demeanor is a civil right, killing unborn children is a civil right....but having the means to defend yourself from criminal attack is, what, just a "hobby"?

Do these hypocrites even read the Bill of Rights anymore? Why exactly did they think it was referred to popularly as the Bill of RIGHTS? So, it's a civil right, but not a "civil liberty"?

Goebbels would be proud.

[knighthawk06699]

Now answer me this truthfully...are you seriously surprised???

[tobor]

"In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

I can't even imagine a good-faith definition of "civil liberties" under which that statement would be true. NAZI's marching through Skokie is a civil right, going through school without being exposed to anyone praying is a civil right, filthy vagrants terrorizing library patrons with their stench and hostile demeanor is a civil right, killing unborn children is a civil right....but having the means to defend yourself from criminal attack is, what, just a "hobby"?

Do these hypocrites even read the Bill of Rights anymore? Why exactly did they think it was referred to popularly as the Bill of RIGHTS? So, it's a civil right, but not a "civil liberty"?

Goebbels would be proud.

Here's my best answer: it's about the money. Follow the money, as Deep Throat said. If the ACLU started defending the 2nd amendment, their sources of financing would dry up overnight.

[schr8er2000]

Since they didnt want to work on COLLECTIVE rulings.. why, since the Supreme Court decided that INDIVIDUALS can keep and bear arms, has the ACLU maintained the same stupid thoughts >> Again... DO AS WE SAY NOT AS WE DO......

H Y P O C R I T E S . . . . .

[tobor]

Uh oh. Looks like got someone bucking the official party line. Seems like a congratulatory email to that office is in order, don't you?


http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-su...ight-bear-arms

[Guy Fawkes]

You would think that since most most anti gun legislation was from a democratic legislature from the south, the ACLU would love to defend it. Obviously that is not the case.

I think they are bigots...

Guy

[Brown-Bear]

I still can't believe that people don't know that. I mean the ACLU was started by the guys left over after Sen. McCarthy ousted the communists in the 50's. They are as about as un-American as you can get. The most special of special intrest groups, the only agenda they serve is there own.

Dave

[Garpman]

Here's my best answer: it's about the money. Follow the money, as Deep Throat said. If the ACLU started defending the 2nd amendment, their sources of financing would dry up overnight.

Yes and no. They'd lose the Hollywood crowd for sure, but then they could gain us, and the NRA, which aren't slackers in the "bling" department.