Apparently, some civil liberties…

March 14th, 2012


…are more equal than others.

Entry Filed under: Gun Control,Milwaukee,Observations

20 Comments Add your own

  • 1. BobG  |  March 14th, 2012 at 11:14 am

    According to a letter they sent me, they do not recognize an individual right to arms, despite what the SCOTUS said, and they do not regard the right to bear arms as a right or a civil liberty.

    “Civil liberties, like democracy, are useful only as tools for social change.”
    – Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

  • 2. Elliot  |  March 14th, 2012 at 11:25 am

    I don’t know, maybe the NRA is against freedom of speech. Guess that would balance things out some.

  • 3. SayUncle » Civil li&hellip  |  March 14th, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    […] Only some apply. […]

  • 4. Durak  |  March 14th, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    The only civil liberties they acknowledge is the ones that make them money.

  • 5. John Foust  |  March 14th, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Defenders of the First Amendment can be concerned about being shot by advocates of the Second. Here’s a recent conservative candidate for the Supreme Court on why he doesn’t want weapons in his workplace.

  • 6. wizardpc  |  March 14th, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    John, I think you linked the wrong item.

  • 7. Rustmeister  |  March 14th, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    I’d say there’s a difference between “advocate of the Second Amendment” and “murderer”.

  • 8. Sigivald  |  March 14th, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Well, there’s no civil liberty to carry a firearm on someone else’s private property if they don’t want you to.

    Just like there’s no free speech right in private property that is not a public forum – which is why the owner of a bar can kick you out if you’re annoying other customers with your blather.

    So they get a pass on the sign; they don’t have an obligation to support lawful concealed carry in their office in order to support civil liberties.

    Their acknowledged stance on gun rights at the Federal level (that there basically aren’t any) is the problem – but not all the State ACLUs share that stance.

    Wisconsin ACLU’s page doesn’t mention gun rights either way, which sadly makes me suspect they take the parent organization’s viewpoint.

  • 9. Russ  |  March 14th, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    I agree with your statements about private property Sigivald, but I disagree with your conclusions in this case. An organization which has as it’s mission upholding civil rights is in a different position than the average person or business in that regard. If you’re going to support civil rights, you shouldn’t pick and choose which civil rights you support, or you’re as bad as the people you rail against. If you believe in freedom, you have to believe in all freedom, otherwise you’re just a pathetic hypocrite.

  • 10. ted n  |  March 14th, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Whatever, they weren’t gonna get any money from me anyway.

  • 11. John M  |  March 14th, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Sigivald,

    Your analogy is not quite fair.

    While its true that a bar might kick you out if you get rowdy, it doesn’t post a sign at the door saying “No speech”.

    If the ACLU only posted a sign advising entrants that bad behavior would not be tolerated, such as “No Robbery”, well, that would fit your analogy better. They’re well within their rights, so long as written law and precedent is concerned, but I wonder if it would cause a scene if they posted a sign saying “No free speech allowed” on their front door? It’s within their rights, after all.

  • 12. Braden Lynch  |  March 15th, 2012 at 2:44 am

    Durak sums it up best. My guess is they believe that the Bill of Rights is just an “a la cart” menu, or a buffet, where you can pick and choose the civil rights that you like.

    I always notice their aversion to supporting Christianity or Judaism, when there are clear violations of the freedom to practice religion. They find religion and firearms to be distasteful, so they ignore them.

    When the ACLU advocates a particular action, or takes a certain stance, I find nine times out of ten that morality, liberty and the Constitution are served best by opposing them.

  • 13. “Some civil liberti&hellip  |  March 15th, 2012 at 5:42 am

    […] evidence at From Where I Sit. I’d gleefully swipe the picture, but then I’d feel guilty. But do click. You gotta see […]

  • 14. Debunked  |  March 15th, 2012 at 9:53 am

    John M, your analogy is far worse, actually. Almost to the point of reducto ad absurdum.

    A *correct* analogy to the ACLU’s no firearms allowed on premises stance is the same as a bar posting a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign on their front door.

    The ACLU is not saying you can not own a firearm. They are saying don’t bring them into our office/building. A right which they have within their own property.

    Nobody is saying that you can’t choose to walk outside without a shirt on. Just don’t walk into an establishment without a shirt on. A right the establishment’s owner has within his own property.


    Braden Lynch:
    I always notice their aversion to supporting Christianity or Judaism, when there are clear violations of the freedom to practice religion.

    Right. Those poor oppressed religious folk. There are just so many laws passed which just blatantly restrict the freedom to practice religion infringing on their first amendment rights. Go ahead, I’ll let you start naming a few off for me.

  • 15. Dan  |  March 15th, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    “A *correct* analogy to the ACLU’s no firearms allowed on premises stance is the same as a bar posting a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign on their front door.”
    If I am not mistaken, that is also law, not a choice.

  • 16. Robert Allen  |  March 15th, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Braden Lynch:
    I always notice their aversion to supporting Christianity or Judaism, when there are clear violations of the freedom to practice religion.

    Debunked:
    Right. Those poor oppressed religious folk. There are just so many laws passed which just blatantly restrict the freedom to practice religion infringing on their first amendment rights. Go ahead, I’ll let you start naming a few off for me.

    Did this happen and I missed it? Since certainly no one defending the Judeo-Christian tradition would drop a “clear violations” statement without backing it up, I thought I’d check. Boy, I sure hope our 44th Christian POTUS in a row will help stem those not-yet-mentioned abuses against believers.

  • 17. Seerak  |  March 15th, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    A bar could have a “No Speech” sign, and that is their First Amendment right. Of course, it is your First Amendment right to realize how stupid that is, and go to another bar.

    Absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights is contingent upon the intelligence or propriety of the particular ways we exercise those rights. On the contrary, that is a feature, not a bug; Amendment I is of tremendous utility in helping us identify idiots and rubes by guaranteeing their right to open their mouths and remove all doubts.

  • 18. THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.&hellip  |  March 18th, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    One picture is worth a thousand words…

    From From Where I Sit: Apparently, some civil liberties . . . . . . are more equal than others…….

  • 19. John Foust  |  March 19th, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Braden, I think you should google “aclu defends christians”. You’ll find plenty of examples.

    Here’s the ACLU’s position on the Second.

  • 20. fishaddict  |  March 19th, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Last I checked there is a property clause to some ammendment or another and yet we have the govt coming in and saying I as a proerty owner cannot have smoking in my business. Why is it that the govt can say what is allowed and not allowed according to the constitution? I was under the immpression that the constitution restricted the rights of the govt and not the people.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta