Supreme Court, 2A, ACLU

As you all probly know the Supreme Court has lately ruled that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms contained within the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.nraila.org/heller/

As some of you might also be aware, in the past, the ACLU (who claim they are out there to protect the Bill of Rights/the Constitutional rights of Americans) have justified their silence on gun control matters in claiming that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right for the military, or whatever other government agents, not for ordinary people.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

The ACLU's website seems, thus far, to have nothing to say about the recent supreme court decision affirming that Americans DO have an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

Now that that's behind us, I wonder if the ACLU will finally come around to supporting the constitutional rights of gun owners. 

According to the Wikipedia, the holding of the Supreme Court is that:  "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

According to the ACLU: 
""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"

So once again:  "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."  -ACLU POLICY STATEMENT

Once again, the recent Supreme Court Decision on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment: 
"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Why is the ACLU determined to ignore the clear and obvious intent of the 2nd Amendment while they parade around trying to rally up support for 'rights' like abortion, affirmative action, 'immigrant rights' and shit like that that has no basis in the first 10 amendments of the bill of rights whatsoever?

According to the "ABOUT THE ACLU" page on their website:  "Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees"

Note that they mention the "ORIGINAL TEN AMENDMENTS" and how "THE MISSION OF THE ACLU IS TO PRESERVE ALL OF THESE PROTECTIONS AND GUARANTEES".

They don't say "some" of these guarantees, they say "ALL" of those guarantees.

Probably not. They're too blinded by their leftist agenda to truly stand for all rights.

>>2
SEEKRIT KOMMUNIST KONSPIRACY!!!

The ACLU was started by Roger Baldwin, a self-admitted Communist who wanted to see private property rights abolished. He formed the ACLU to protect his communist brethren from prosecution in America in the 1920's.

FACT.

>>4
OMG OMG OMG I KNEEW IT!!! IT'S ALL A KOMMUNIST KONSPIRACY!!! LOOK AT THAT ONE GUY!!!!! I'LL JUST KEEP CRYING ON WHY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DON'T BELIEEV MY RETARDED CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!

>>4
It's obvious that you can't refute what >>4 said so you revert back to your childish crying in cruise contol. You're getting boring....

The real travesty here is that the SCOTUS result was 5-4.  Why on earth did FOUR justices in that court actually believe the Second Amendment was not for individuals to exercise?  Where did these justices get their education?  Oh, yeah, that's right:  FROM THE LIBERALS INFESTING OUR COLLEGES.

The Second Amendment is clear.  The text and English are equally clear.  YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.  National defense can work off of that base, but without such a base, national defense is a lot harder to achieve.  THAT'S the point that the Founders were trying to get across.  The people themselves must be free to arm themselves if national defense is supposed to be enacted.  And what are the people to do in periods when national defense is not being enacted?  THAT'S A TRICK QUESTION.  Preparation for national defense must be CONSTANT.

And even if such preparations were not constant, you STILL DON'T LOSE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

Cue the predictable Liberal whining.

>>6
It is obvious that you are too retarded understand even a simplified ridicule of how unintelligent your whining is, but apparently this is BAWW YOU KANT REFUTE MY IRRELEVANT PIECE!!! in your ever pathetic mind which is getting worse with every piece it spurts out getting owned by the mighty combination of reason, logic and reality.

>>8
I'm starting to like this guy

>>8
LOL. Another post that says absolutely nothing...

>>10
More like another post your pathetic mind failed to grasp, repeating the point that your crying was completely irrelevant didn't seem to help you at all. I'm very sorry you are this stupid, but there is only so much I can do to help.

>>11
Every time you actually attempt to present an argument you get destroyed, so you revert back to useless ad hominem posts.

Liberal is as liberal does....LULZ!

>>12
Are you retarded, or can't you read, or both? If you consider HURR X IS A COMMUNIST a factual argument that is relevant to every subject given, then you need to look and see the reality behind those "ad hominem" posts you cried about, this is strengthened by the fact that you are a retard who lumps together anyone with slightly more intelligence than you as "liberal".

>>13
LOL Would you like a little cheese with your WHINE!

>>13
Do you enjoy having the same argument every day?  Since you're so smart you should notice that you aren't changing anyone's mind here.  In fact your ridiculous and asinine cruise control tactics destroy your credibility as a poster.  Why on earth would anyone listen to a guy who makes such childish arguments?  And for that matter, why are you so zealous in your attempt to "own" anonymous 4chaners?  Is your summer vacation really that dull, or are you just practicing for your middle school debate club?

>>14
>>15
Spoiler: It's a 15 year old troll who thinks he's "smrt" and "sticking it to the man". Keep replies short and sweet so ironically the troll spends more time trolling than his targets spend replying. Use ockam's razor (don't say anything unnecessary) to devise a reply whilst at the same time refine your logic skills.

>>15
Nice way to run away from the factual arguments which neither you nor your retarded buddies could refute again. Average libertarian "argument" when faced with facts has regressed to something like this >>14 now. Facts = "BAWW CHILDISH ARGUMENTS BECAUSE HE MAKES FUN OF HOW RETARDED WE ARE" and "counteragument" = "FASCISTS=SOCAILISTS=LIBERALS=CONSERVATIVES" in your pathetic mind. I see, but you see the only way to believe these things is being retarded - as being ignorant is not an excuse now as proof has been pointed out.

>>16
In after extreme irony from a retarded libertaryan. BAWW DEY AR TROLLAN BECAUSE THEY ARE POINTING OUT SOLID FACTS DISPROVING MY EXTREMELY DELUSIONAL WORLDVIEW STEMMING FROM MY EXTREME IGNORANCE unfortunately shows how pathetic you are once again.

The truth was posted in >>4.

I have yet to see anyone writing that it's untrue. Because you can't. Socialist and communist vermin have been the fifth column in this country since Tailgunner Joe brought it to everyones attention.
The ACLU has always been part of the fifth column. FACT.

>>18
Hey, retarded loser, you seem to be stuck in the red scare era, and you think X IS A COMMUNIST is a valid "argument" for any given topic. Very sad, indeed...

>>19
If someone IS a communist, then it IS a valid argument...

>>20
Yeah, riight.

I wonder how you retards are when you go outside or something

-I think you should buy this instea-
-OMG OMG OMG URA KOMMUNIST SO UR RONG!!!!!!

>>21
Another monumentally great post.

YOU FAIL AND ARE BORING.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/06/gun-control.html

I don't have anything new to say about the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision, so here's what I wrote in 2004:

Original Intent of the Second Amendment: I haven't really been into guns since I desperately wanted a BB gun for my 9th birthday (see "Christmas Story" for details), but my son and I did some research recently into what the authors and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights intended to do by passing 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."

This wording is rather unusual -- besides the superfluity of commas -- in the context of the Bill of Rights in that it contains what appears to be a "whereas" clause, which most of the other first 10 amendments don't. The First for example, doesn't say, "A war of religion, being a bad thing, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

This anomaly has led many contemporary commentators to assume that the 2nd Amendment was meant only to apply to state militias and not to individual gun ownership. Here, for example, is Dahlia Lithwick in Slate confidently explaining that "Eminent legal scholars, including Sanford Levinson and historians such as Emory's Michael Bellesiles, have done some staggering scholarly work on the subject of the original intent of the Framers and the prevalence of guns at the time of the founding of the country."

Staggering, indeed. As the eminent Professor Bellesiles showed in his prizewinning book Arming America: My Fantasy of How Frontier Life Should Have Been, when an American in 1789 felt a hankering for deer meat, rather than resort to using a gun, he normally ran a deer down on foot and gnawed the beast to death with his teeth.

What my son and I found out about the original intent was the exact opposite. The research was a little frustrating to do because there was almost no debate among state legislators at the time about an individual right to gun ownership -- because that simply wasn't controversial. Of course Americans had the right to own guns: the woods were full of bars, Injuns, and bad 'uns. Nobody argued about it then because there was nobody at the time to argue with.

What was controversial back then were state militias -- trained bodies of fighters who could potentially resist the federal government. Legalizing militias -- i.e., alternative armies to the U.S. Army -- was obviously a much more radical step than legalizing individual ownership of firearms. Legitimizing militias was a concession that Federalists like Madison made to win the approval of those skeptical of the centralizing force of the Constitution.

When the Union Army won the Civil War, the idea of alternative armies started to look outdated, thus leading to the current misinterpretations of what the authors and ratifiers of the Second Amendment meant. Gun control advocates should feel free to argue than in an era of rocket-propelled-grenades and radio-dispatched police cars, the whole Second Amendment is obsolete and dangerous, but please don't make up stories about what it was supposed to mean.

The other big change is that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states until the 14th Amendment of 1868. For example, Connecticut had an establishment of religion until 1818. So, the ratifiers weren't establishing an absolute right of gun ownership, they were just preventing the federal government from infringing it.

Anyone who is against personal gun ownership should be shot.

End of story.

>>22
I see that you insist on crying... OMG LOOK THE REDS ARE COMING RUN!!! SET ASIDE LOGIC AND REASON, KNOWLEDGE IS FOR SOSHALISTS!!!

>>25
Are all socialists as boring and unimaginative as you??

>>26
Of course, reality might seem a tad boring and unimaginative after coming off from an imaginary world where everything is a communist conspiracy...

>>27
Let me answer >>26 for you, comrade.

NO! Socialism is fun and exciting!!

The reason the ACLU doesn't like the Second Amendment is because the primary function of the ACLU is not so much to protect our Bill of Rights as it is to promote a liberal left-wing agenda.

Roger Baldwin stated that the ACLU would use the freedoms provided by the Bill of Rights to de-construct western civilization.

HURR DURRR HURRRR JEWISH COMMIE CONSPIRACY HURRRRRR SEKUND AMENDMENT HURR DURRR FUCK CIVILIZED WORLD, A GUN COMPENSATES MY TINY PENIS AND RETARDED MIND!

>>31
Don't be so hard on yourself, buddy...We don't really care about your tiny penis and retarded mind...

>>31
gb2 china or whatever commie shithole you came from libfag

>>33
>libfag, commie, china
LOOK, WE ARE BOTH RETARDED ENOUGH TO BELIEVE ANYONE WHO ISN'T US IS THE SAME, WHY ARE YOU DENYING ME THE RIGHT TO JOIN YOUR RETARD-CLUB?

>>34
You have the right to join, and we have the right to laugh at your ignorance...

>>31
What a fantastic and thought provoking bit of political discourse.

>>35
But I uphold exactly the same values as you, my other retarded LIBERTARYAN brethren, so...

>>37
Nah. It's obvious you're that fag whom spends hours a day here calling people butthurt, retarded and "libertaryan" if they appear to be but 1 mm to the right of Michael Moore.

>>38
BUT I CLAIM THE EXACT SAME RETARDATION AS YOU, LIKE BUSH IS SOSHALIST, NAZIS ARE SOSHALIST, EVERYONE IS SOSHALIST ETC. AND I BELIEVE MAGICK MARKAT FORSAZ WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING IF YOU LEAVE THEM ALONE, AND AM MENTALLY RETARDED - SEE, I'M IDENTICAL TO YOU

>>39
post 801 of exactly the same thing! What a shocker!

Your FAILURE is now officially legendary...