The Armed Wing Of The ACLU

Comments

1
"right to bare arms?!" no, I say sleeves for everyone!
2
Hey if we have the right to bear arms, why can't we have nukes and the biological weapons that our Government has?

The ammendment was to protect ourselves from our own government. We are powerless in the face of our own goverment with guns.

Chew on that.
3
Dear government datamining analyzers:

I do not want nukes. It was only allegory.
4
The threats against Moore are complete bullshit as is pretty much anything that comes out of Palin's and Huckabee's blowholes.

The second amendment is a joke...it is not a civil right to bear arms, it is a privelege that should only be afforded to a select few.
5
I was quite upset at our ID4 parade when two gay floats went by and I was the only one wooting and hollering and then a group of 2nd amendment supporters walked by with their guns out and the whole corner let out a triumphant roar.

And this was after the Gov'nah resigned.
6
I mean privilege...coffee has not kicked in yet...
7
Of course, most (not all, but most) gun nuts are uber-republicans and thus only care about the rights of conservatives. The gun nuts would be much more likely to shoot the ACLU than to support it.

They love free speech, yes... but only when it favors them.
8
@ 5, imagine if the people on the gay floats were all waving rifles and shotguns around. I bet the crowd would have bolted.
9
@4, the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you. And for good reason, too. Your ignorance is showing.
10
@9 I actually own a few guns from when I used to compete in marksmanship competitions and would go hunting with my dad. I do not believe that I should have a right to keep those guns but that I am privileged to have them. We should be a lot more strict on who gets to have a gun and what kind of gun they get.

You can not define this as a civil right unless you give that same right to ALL citizens including those in jail for murder. It should be taken out of the constitution no matter what the right-leaning SCOTUS says.
11
#1:

Gun Show!

12
Hmm. I think I'd like someone from Alaska to weigh in on the "most gun nuts in Alaska are conservatives and support Sarah Palin" statement. My impression of Alaskans was that they don't really fit the traditional red state/blue state divide. I definitely got a "hands off my guns and my weed" libertarian vibe from many people there.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a sizable group of political/social liberals who are pro-guns there, and "pro-gun nuts" who are anti-Palin.
13
I kind of take umbrage to this idea that Alaska is full of conservative gun nuts. When you live in a state where you actually NEED guns (and that's right, I said it, some people need guns) a right to own one is something you keep dear to your heart. For every sledneck hick who LOVES Fox Racing gear, meth, and jesus, there are doctors, professors, and totally normal people (some of them democrats and gay lovers!) who own guns to hunt (moose meat is in fact delicious), or you know to keep wolves/bears/insert other wild animal from killing or maiming you/your children/heaven forbid your dog. Oh and to protect yourself from the aforementioned meth heads.
14
@10

It's not a civil right, it is a constitutional right, which can be taken away with a felony conviction, like voting.

Now then, are you saying that the government should be able to go into my 70 year old mother's house and take away the shotgun she uses to kill vermin? Who decides who gets a gun and who doesn't? Some sort of tribunal? A panel of experts? That's a nice slippery slope.
15
I'm pretty much as liberal as you can get on most fronts, but damn, it pisses me off that I agree with Huckabee on this one. Shit....he is right.
16
I'm not from Alaska, so I can't speak to the pro-gun/anti-gun leanings of any political party there, but I am from Missouri, which has its fair share of Right-Wing crazies. That being said - I'm a liberal, and a mother, and I support gun rights, but I support them the same way I support people's right to drive a car: you need to be licensed, you need to show you understand how to operate it safely and the laws governing the use of it, and it needs to come up for renewal every so often. It also should be a privilege that can be revoked for unacceptable behavior - like criminal offenses, harassment and stalking charges, etc. Other than that, I say the government should keep out of it. I don't think the pro-gun stance necessarily carries a political distinction with it - I know I'd hate to be lumped in with the GOP.
17
btw, huckabee is a twat.....he would be the first guy in my rifle scope....
18
@14 So does that mean if I am convicted of a crime I am no longer entitled to my right of free speech? Am I now subject to quartering a soldier without my permission? Can I no longer have a speedy trial? Are those constitutional rights that can be taken away with a felony? If I am a

Voting is not a right but a privilege and a duty of citizenship.

I never said that we should go through everyone's home and take their guns away...just saying that it should be much harder to get one and that it is not a right.
19
Great idea about gun owners defending Shannyn Moore. Let me give you another: I have heard the occasional rumor that there may be a gun owner or two in Texas. Imagine if just a few of them had been prepared to defend the patrons of the Rainbow Lounge.
20
@14: She *needs* a gun for that? How big are these vermin? Are they Rodents of Unusual Size?
21
Just imagine the chaos that would ensue if thousands of people showed up ARMED to a rally or protest. It would be just the kind of ammo the anti-gun movement would need to seriously push for an abolition of the second amendment. "Look how dangerous and irresponsible they are!" "It could have been a bloodbath!" "They want to take over the country!" These would be the rallying cries that would echo from the lips of people like Dan Savage all over the country.

I support the second amendment because I believe Americans can be responsible gun owners. I don't want to shoot anyone, nor do I want anyone to think that I will. I support the first amendment as well, and I would love to participate in a large rally for free speech. But you'll never catch me there with a gun. You don't want that kind of support.
22
@20,
R.O.U.S.'s? I don't think they exist.
23
@18: "Voting is not a right but a privilege and a duty of citizenship."

Dude, you clearly don't know jack shit about the Constitution. I thought your comments re the second amendment were off the wall, but this takes the cake.
24
It worked out great for the Black Panther party.

Fear of the government is worst reason anyone should own a gun.
25
Right on, Dan. I'd like to think of my self as a "rights nut," full bore for speech, guns, and gays. Two gay sportsmen getting married, complete with readings from The Satanic Verses and Huck Finn, would make me cry a single, joyful tear.
26
What good is a gun if your can't shoot someone? How about themselves? That's it. Gun ownwers would do "mericans of every stripe a great favor if they all assembled and shot each other to protest everything they can think of like taxes and liberals and Obama.
27
Still offended by your continued use of the term 'gun nuts' to mean each and every American citizen who owns a firearm...

You are being hysterical and myopic with your use of this term, Dan.

28
Guns are mostly useless if used to support the 2nd amendment. We need a way to prevent the violence a government can unleash on its own people, or a way to over throw it.

I would say getting rid of all guns would be a more important move, it would be easier to overthrow the government. Hell in a (more) perfect world I would only give the cops weapons (mostly non-lethal). The army and public can just get trained if they want.

Why we need fatal gadgets to ensure peace I will never know. I would take a 30% chance of death with tazer guns over real guns.
29
@26,

Why does it have to be someone and not something? Shooting guns is fun, flat out fun. Getting better at it is even more fun. Since I can't own a gun legally here in Chicago thanks to Mayor Shortshanks and his shortsighted ideas, I must again reference my 70 yr old long-time liberal-fought for women's rights in the military-never voted for a republican-only democrat on the town board-GUN OWNING AND SHOOTING compassionate liberal mother. There are many like us in the United States, which makes your comment even more ignorant than one could expect.

@20, vermin come in all shapes and sizes. Weasels, root eating gophers, turkeys, coyotes, etc. For the most part she uses it to scare them off, but hey....
30
Oh, and @20, I rechecked my post and nowhere did I say "needs". Likes, yes, "needs", no. But the fact that we can have them per the law of the land makes it double extra awesome.

U S of fucking A!!
31
Dan is never so clueless and embarrassing as when he talks about guns.
32
great point!!
33
Let's do it. Let's all get our carry permits, train hard, hell, come up with a faboo uniform even, and put ourselves in harm's way wherever we're needed.

Where we can carry guns, according to the written law of our state or municipality, we'll carry guns. Where we can't carry guns, we'll carry swords and shields. Where we can't carry them, we'll carry pointed sticks. Where they'll oppress our rite to bear arms, we'll carry our chi and our wu shu.

We'll plan our operations in miniature around a round table and be a flame of glory burning bright against the darkness.

But first we'll need a general.

Dan?

You up to the task?
34
I have amongst my collection of ironic political treasures a flyer from Berkeley declaring No Free Speech for Fascists, encouraging folks to gather to protest a public rally of white supremacists.

My position on the debate on whether firearms are effective protection from tyranny as well as threats foreign has already been stated elsewhere on SLOG, so I'll refrain from repeating it now, except to say guns have their place as a means for the continuation of politics. Indeed, we've seen them used for purposes disagreeable to most SLOG regulars, (certainly disagreeable to me). While I prayed for the last eight years someone would give their patriotic life to taking out the president (or better yet, the veep) it never happened, perhaps because most radical liberals don't believe in the use of violence to achieve their ends.

That said, I seriously doubt Mike Huckabee would prove to be an advocate of the first amendment when its gorgoneque head is truly revealed to him. Heck, he might for the sake of argument agree that Shannyn Moore's website is worthy of protection despite his distaste for the content, or feelings it is somehow unpatriotic to question one's representatives. But I doubt that he'd bring his own weapons to bear for the protection of Christopher Handley for possession (amongst a greater collection of less controversial manga and anime,) of lolicon, or as was written in the police reports obscene material, including books containing visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, specifically Japanese manga drawings of minor females being sexually abused by adult males and animals.

I wonder how many here on SLOG, who regard themselves liberals and / or staunch defenders of the First Amendment, would rise to this occasion. Fortunately, Neil Gaiman has. And he has been assisting finance of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund towards Handley's defense.
35
A picture and a quote for your interest and continued debate. Also, a bit of important armed history.

All that said: They key to any sort of revolutionary/guerilla movement is a strong sense of shared purpose and/or unity. Despite all the US militia ravings over the years, I posit that there is no common unity or agreed upon purpose among even half the people in the US. The USA is simply too large for any widespread rebellion. Which was by design... When the 'framers' argued for federalizing the young States, inability of rebellion to spread beyond a local area was a key feature of the plan.

There will be no armed --nor likely unarmed-- rebellion across this federal nation. It will always be small, and therefore containable. Like the war in Chechnya (which, again, only took place against a very weakened Russia).
36
Dan, your wish is my command! I am a card carrying member of both the ACLU (to whom I donate a little money monthly despite my underemployment) and the NRA. I'm a fan of the *entire* constitution, which, before anyone asks, I have read from start to finish. :) Let me know the next time you feel the need for a body guard at one of your speaking gigs. As a small boned, middle aged lady, no one will suspect that I am there, armed to the teeth, to defend your rights and/or your honor. Come on! It'll be fun!
37
You go girl. The Second ammendment backs up the First, it's just that simple.
38
Oh, Lissa, you get me all hot and bothered.
39
Lissa, you made me smile today. Thank you.
40
All gun owners are "gun nuts."

All Arabs are "terrorists."

All gay men are child molesters.

See the similarities?
41
treacle @35 thanks for the swell Orwell quote. In return I offer another quorw of some pertinence.

Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars. -- Andrew Niccol, Lord of War (2005)

I'm still looking for the coin.
42
"Second Amendment fans would find lots of allies on the left—particularly among supporters of the First Amendment—if they functioned as the armed wing of the ACLU."

The ACLU's understanding of the Constitution would not support such an act. Until and even after Heller came out, this was its position:

"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."

So, Dan's suggestion would fail unless the ACLU could get the National Guard on its side.