You Americans are Gun Freaks...

I'm trying.

}As for Germany, I am not proud of Germany's record.
}But we do not pretend to be the land of the free
}and home of the brave either.

True. "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles..." "Springtime for Hitler,
and Germany/Winter for Poland and France..."

>Germany is not
}a multi-racial land

Anymore.

>--The turks are relative
}newcomers.

The Jews are relative lategoers, then?

>I deplore what happened at Moelln
}and Solingen. Many of my friends are active anti-Faschists.

How do you think blaming people collectively is going to do anything
except support the collectivism underlying fascism?

}(But at least we did not bring slaves
}to our country, refuse to educate them and
}then expect them to "shape up or ship out"
}once they were free. And then complain
}that they are ignorant and such.)

No, you deluded Jews into thinking your country was civilized, then
made them into soap and lampshades.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com

Think Universally, Act Selfishly - st...@genie.slhs.udel.edu

18 million. 6 million Jews, 12 million others.

> >Also I know more than a few American Jews who are armed as a direct result of
> >their experiences, or those of their relatives in Germany between '33 and '45.
> This is something I'd always been curious about, and is refreshing to hear.
> I'm surprised at how many people seem to miss the painfully obvious lesson
> that totalitarianism flourishes amongst an unarmed population.
>
> I'd be interested if there are any polls on gun ownership amongst immigrants
> and descendants of immigrants from totalitarian societies, or even from
> societies where private ownership of weapons is illegal.
>
Maybe the NRA should be sponsoring the immigration of Jews and Turks from the
Federal Republic of Germany. They're good people (certainly better than
Andreas the Nazi) and they sure know why WE have the 2nd Amendment now.

--

===================================================================
"Read my lips, no new Haitians" - Bill Clinton
===================================================================

> }I prefer to defend myself with my own hands rather than an out of shape
> }pot belly farmer with a gun.
>
> Fine. You're probably a fine, strapping ubermensch. How about your grand-
> mother? Will you always be there to protect her when she needs you?

No need. When she gets too feeble to "crack" Jews and Turks in the street,
he'll have her euthanized....

The fellow from Germany claims that Americans are love-sick with our
guns, eh? Well it just so happens that I was over in Germany not a month
ago, and believe me, this guy does NOT speak for other Germans.

Like America, Schutzfests are very popular in Germany. One of course
needs a permit to purchase a firearm, but they are non-discretionary.
Carry permits are non-existant, but the Waffenschein allows the owner
to take their firearm to the range and back.

There is a German saying, "Keine Jager ohne Wald", which means "without
hunters there will no longer be forests". What does THIS tell you?

Also, I brought back some interesting magazines such as DEUTSCHE WAFFEN
JOURNAL, essentially a German "Guns & Ammo". It is interesting to note
that Jeff Cooper is well known over there!

Now if that does not convince you, on the Autobahn outside Stuttgart, there
was actually this one truck I saw with a Colt sticker(!) on the door.

Kindly ignore this guy, as he does not seem to get out too often.

********************************

On the other hand, I consider myself a Germanophile, so I am obligated
to tell everyone here to can it with this "once-a-nazi-always-a-nazi"
ignorance. To paraphrase Chancellor Kohl, "This is the nineties, not
the forties!"

If you actually understand the problems going on over there, fine.
Otherwise, if you cannot even recognize the German flag, then kindly keep
your opinions to yourself.

And now we return you to talk.politics.guns...

Dave

>I was in the Bundesmarinen (German Marines) and many US soldiers
>I met in Germany had this sick love of guns. I mean, they talk
>about their guns as if they were talking about some part of
>their bodies. (as if it was a penis) Come on guys. Get a life!

My father was drafted into the Waffen SS at age 17, spent 5 years as Stalin's
guest and still he and I go target shooting when we can. He kinda misses the
Belgian Browning he had to dismantle and dump into a latrine before being
captured. Point is, this is not an American thing.

Besides that, it seems the weapon of choice in Rostock and other wonderful
displays of harmony with fellow humans (NOT) was the Mollie (Molotov
cocktail). You don't see "Entruestung...nehmt den Buergern die Flaschen ab!"

-Karl

As an American who has moved to New Brunswick and receives cable TV, I too
am shocked by the local news out of Detroit.

Perhaps Canadians would develop a more accurate view of American life if
the cable utilities piped in network TV from the Bangor affiliates. That
way, they can follow the high school basketball scores from Passadumkeag
and Milford ("best little town by a dam site") instead of tallying up the
nightly bodycount from drug-related shoot-outs.

"When guns are outlawed, gun owners will become outlaws."
Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick
mal...@atlantic.cs.unb.ca or j9...@jupiter.csd.unb.ca }>:-)> --->
_____________ Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem ____________

>vin...@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:

>>Well I see you're using not just a broad brush, but rather a roller,
>>to paint a nice stereotype of all American gun-owners. Funny how the last
>>NRA membership stat was that the average member was a law-abiding citizen
>>in a technical field like medicine, engineering, or computers. Certainly my
>>dentist likes NRA Sporting Clays.

>Gee, does that make me the prototype for NRA members? Got my engineering
>degrees in 1991, currently work as a computer programmer, entering
>medical school in two weeks, and joined the NRA this spring. I'd love
>to think of myself as the poster-boy for the organization.

>What image do these anti-gunners from Europe and Canada have of the
>typical NRA member/gun owner? Does the US media's skewed portrayal of
>us extend that fully to other continents?

Yes.

Geoff (g-mi...@adfa.edu.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy

This is a gross over-generalization and a stereo-typing that I thought was
forbidden to the politically correct european thought process.

If the average american southerner to whom you are referring had actually
stolen property from native americans, that would make him over 180 years
old, and while the relaxed southern lifestyle can contribute to a longer
life, that is pushing even the OUTLIER area.

Have one, thanks.

Well, I can see that an out-of-shape-pot-belly[sic]-farmer-with-a-gun would
be tough to defend yourself with. The shape is awkward, and he'd keep
trying to shoot you for assaulting him when you picked him up to use him for
a weapon.

>But then again, there is such poverty
>and squalor in America (because you spent so much of your money
>on defense)

The poverty comes from pride, and the resultant refusal to accept largess
based on taxes that take earnings away from the people they belong to. But
that's changing. Soon, we'll be adopting the european model of taking from
those who produce, and giving to those who don't.

>Your NRA are a bunch of right-wing fanatics. Somebody tell these
>people to get a life. You're country is bleeding to death.

Actually, most of the NRA members I know of are Civil libertarians who are
far more centerists. How many NRA members do you know?

T. Archer

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce. "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Okay, I'm gonna ease up, because you've convinced me that you are real.
Instead of flaming you, I'm gonna make some cultural observations. I mean
no disrespect, but since I am assuming you are here to learn, I will go so
far as to correct your "americanisms."

>The United States are a great country. But all this
>need for guns is ignoring a deep underlying problem.

Not at all. The problems you are referring to are not being ignored. This
is a narrow venue where we discuss the application of the treatment of one
symptom.

>
>Perhaps you need a gun and it is intelligent to
>carry a gun. But why is there such a criminality
>in the first place? Because your society is falling
>apart. No one cares.

Oh, no. We care a LOT. We just have strong feelings about the possible
solutions.

>I have been to New York and
>seen the inequality.

What inequality? And how to you propose we address it?

>I'm just trying to say: you may be fighting with
>the SYMPTOM of the social problem: crime.

Crime is a social problem, not a symptom. Please try again. I think I am
mis-understanding you.

Inequality in what? (We are NOT indifferent to violence. WHy do you think
we want to carry a means of self-defense?)

>But so violent. They love these television shows
>and movies with breaking heads and such.

That's because they are EXCITING, not because they are VIOLENT.

>They
>love Reagan because he finds it easy to bomb
>other countries.

No. The loved Reagan because he demonstrated pride and decisiveness, rather
than guilt and waffling.

>They play shoot-up video
>games.

And know that they are GAMES, not REALITY.

>
>They love these shows and videos showing executions!
>Why? Why? Why?

That's an aberration, not the norm.

We do not "pretend," either. We try and make it a fact, and admit it when
we fall short, and try and fix it.

>Germany is not
>a multi-racial land--The turks are relative
>newcomers.

This doesn't make buring them alive ok. But then, I shouldn't cast
aspersions. Our BATF did that in Waco not long ago.

>Likewise I'm sure many Americans in the south don't
>like to think about slavery or blackshangings.

Blackshangings is not a valid english construction. A hanging done without
the authority of the state is called a "lynching," pronounced "lin-ching,"
with the accent on the first syllable.

Nor did we. To have done so would mean that "we" are over 100 years old,
and I know of no one old enough to have done so.

Actually, yes. You think it's hard for use to buy air-time over HERE.

>
>
>Harry

Jens

>What possesed you to do that? :-)

Three degrees on a university is bad luck, especially if one plans to stay
in academia. Of the half-dozen-odd universities which offer Surveying
Engineering on the continent, UNB seemed to have one of the better programs
in my field of interest. Besides, I figured that moving a couple hundred
miles to New Brunswick would be less of a shock to my system than moving to
California or Ohio.

>It'll be interesting when we get our satellite dish in working order.
>The Canadian birds carry the Detroit affiliates. Right now I can
>watch CBC news. I tell you, either nothing happens in Canada, or
>the GOVERNMENT OWNED network isn't telling the whole story. If the
>posting from last week is true about Canadian violent crime rates,
>the media up there sure is keeping mum about it.

I myself never watch the national news for lack of interest, so I really
can't comment on its content.

New Brunswick's homicide rate is just a hair greater than Maine's. My
impression from watching the local news is that New Brunswick has similar
rates for other violent crimes. They are certainly not immune to the such
problems as armed bank robberies, shoot-outs among the riff-raff, and
finding abandoned babies in trash cans.

KKK member, drives a pick-up truck, dented, with a shotgun rack in the
back (full, of course), chaws terbaccy, sips moonshine, has a hound
dawg in his front yard (that sleeps with him, of course), beats his
wife and kids, and shoots at anything that moves, especially if black.

The truly funny thing is that they then come back and accuse gun
owners of bigotry.

Dave Barton
d...@hudson.wash.inmet.com

>KKK member

No, but I appreciate some of the things that they _say_, and their right
to say such things.

>drives a pick-up truck, dented

Sometimes - my late grandfather's '76 Chevy is pretty special to me.

I hate to advertise being armed.

>chaws terbaccy

Ug! No tobacco for me.

>sips moonshine

no alcohol either

I've got three dogs that do sleep with us - no hounds, though.

>beats his
>wife and kids

No kids yet, but my wife got hurt playing with me and the dogs yesterday.

Yesterday I finally got that groundhog that (I assume) has been bothering
our cat and seemed to think he had mining rights under our barns. It was
kinda dark.

Well, I may not be the NRA poster child, but can I keep my membership?

--kyler

Acutally, I'm one of the ones the cops have to keep away from the KKK lest I
please their posterior portions with bountiful bunches of bb's.

'91 S-15 Jimmy 4x4, close. (I used to drive such a beast, though)

Acutally, I keep a .357 magnum in the console (between the front seats),
it's much easier to get to that way.

> >chaws terbaccy

Never even tried it.

> >sips moonshine

Acutally, I prefer a fine single-malt scotch, thank you. (But I'll settle
for brandy).

No "dawg," been thinkin about a good Irish Setter, though.

Well, blush, my wife enjoys the occaisional light spanking during foreplay,
but I don't think that's what you're talking about, is it?

My kids beat up on me at the slightest provocation (just try grabbing my
eight year old daughter from behind -- a very *strong* cup is recommended).

The last moving thing I shot at was a 4" clay disk.

You almost got it right, though, *if I'm in the woods* I'll shoot anything
that moves *at me with an unpleasant display of fangs*, is black *and weighs
2000 pounds!* (ie: bear)

You forgot the most important part: I carry a firearm because I believe I
have a moral obligation to act if and when I see someone being victimized.
A firearm empowers me to do this with a 50-50 chance of surviving, is that
too much to ask?
--
Most people seem to think that trampling individual rights is OK if it is
"for the good of society as a whole." However, society is but a large number
of individuals, and how can harming the individual parts better the whole?
- Andrew Ford -- fo...@agcs.com -- (a strong INFP [>75% in all 4])

I'm the guy trying to wash their sheets with gasoline (lets them feel at one
with the cross :-)

'89 CRX, looking at a Volvo 850 (how yuppie!)

Sorry, can't carry in Texas.

Tried it once, you haven't missed a thing.

Shine should be gulped. I prefer Irish (Jameisons) and have a case of '82
Mouton-Rothschild waiting for 2001.

Two wonderful mutts.

No, my wife beats me at backgammon, won't even play chess and can out swim me
to about 200m.

And it was probably white!

I try to avoid that mistake altogether.

A firearm is the strongest promise of surviving a confrontation in which I must
defend myself. To deny me that right is to deny me the right to defend myself,
which thus denys me a right to live.

--
Dillon Pyron | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here) |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home) |Please send mail to py...@dseg.ti.com
py...@dseg.ti.com |since skndiv is going away. Thanks
PADI AI-54909 |

I hereby give you my august permission.

I am glad that you recognize my total authority on all matters. No
one else does.

Dave Barton
d...@hudson.wash.inmet.com

I not sure if the ACLU can be counted on anymore to defend the Bill of Rights.
I read an article where they have reinterpreted the First Ammendment so as not
to take on cases that involve sexual harassment. The article mentioned that
radical feminist lawyers were behind this move, stating they felt women's
concerns were more important than free speech where sexual harassment is
involved. I thought lawyers were supposed to be loyal to the Constitution of
the United States. Sound like traitors to me if what I read was accurate.
But then radical feminists are control freaks and I doubt have much loyalty
to our society and culture. They have made that very clear in their writtings.

It could be that the strong radical feminist element in the ACLU now is
behind the reinterpeted 2ed ammendment. Since radical feminists are
usually of the far left, one might suspect this is true. Does anyone know
about the ACLU and why they are becomming what seems to be PC. What is the
world comming to if the ACLU is becomming a threat to our rights.

The words of T.J. are becomming more and more meaningful everyday in
light of the radical attacks on our freedoms. Perhaps it is how
Jefferson interpreted the 2nd Ammmendment of the Constitution is what
they really fear.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

starbuck

y'all can thank the Arizona Republic editorial for that. ("high-
powered assault weapons" my ass! i called the editor & she couldn't
even tell me what she _meant_ by "assault-type weapon" & kept
insisting that "anyone could walk into a gun store & buy a machinegun
& oh we need more LAWS...")

anyway, i'm a long haired, skinny, strung out lookin' dude.
(not my fault! i've been puking sick for the last week & lost
all the weight i managed to put on in the last 2 months.)

it's kinda fun looking like a hippie, 'cause i'm always getting
approached by campus socialists, whereupon i get the wonderful
opportunity to inform them that the only good thing that socialism
has ever produced is the AKS & if they try to overthrow this
constitutional republic they'll find themselves at the wrong end
of mine. :^)

jason "can't wait for that baseball cap! redneck city!" steiner

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, `,`
`,` but only a fool trusts either of them" - P.J. O'Rourke `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` ste...@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

1). If you want to rely on cultural stereotypes, consider that radical
feminists probably want to have guns to defend against white male rapists.
2). For an organization to turn down certain cases does not constitute a
threat to our rights. Everything they do is still in the defense of human
rights. Maybe just not every right. When was the last time you heard a Third
Amendment case?
3). If the ACLU is so PC, why did they defend Oliver North and the Skokie
Nazis?

Andrew Ross Even Stalin favored free speech for those who agreed with him.
Real free speech concern means defending the rights of scum.

It's not a cultural stereotype. It's publicy stated policy. If you don't
believe me, call NOW and ask them what their policy on women and guns is.
Much of the organized women's movement displays an irrational unilateral
pacifism. Oddly enough, they DON'T object to the POLICE shooting rapists. I
guess the idea is that it's WRONG to shoot an attempted rapist in the act, but
it's OK to call the police AFTER you're raped, and let THEM shoot him.

No, it's a threat to their credibility. The ACLU doesn't have civil liberties
as a guiding principle, it has leftist ideology. If that's NOT the case,
please explain why the ACLU supports the unrestricted right of a minor girl to
obtain an abortion without permission from or notification of her parents, while
at the same time supporting the right of Ukrainian parents to FORCE their son
to return to the Soviet Union against his will, and in the face of likely
prosecution and persecution for "anti-Soviet agitation" and "slandering the
Soviet state". I'm pro-choice, and I find it UTTERLY impossible to reconcile
the two positions. The dichotomy is completely arbitrary and based solely on
an ideological preference for the then Soviet Union.

Opposition to the government is often PC, regardless of what the issue is. Of
course you neglect to mention the upheaval within the ACLU which the Nazi
defense created.

} 2). For an organization to turn down certain cases does not constitute a

If the ACLU merely kept silent on the matter I'd have little quarrel with
them (on that point, at least). Unfortunately, they've publicly stated
their opinion that the 2nd Amendment does not affirm an individual right
and only refers to the National Guard. Since this interpretation (a)
parrots the HCI party line and (b) can't be arrived at by any sane reading
of the Constitution, I have withdrawn my support from the ACLU and sent
them a polite letter explaining the money I was going to give them is now
going to the NRA/ILA.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: holl...@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp Laws define crime.
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (310) 450-9111, x2483 Police enforce laws.
Santa Monica, CA 90405 Citizens prevent crime.

The ACLU does not support the 2nd, it has said so, and even managed to omit it
from it's 200th anniversary Bill of Rights poster. How clear do you want them
to get? Call the national headquarters if you do not believe us.

The ACLU defends first and fifth ammendment rights.

Absolutely.

Jim
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim De Arras - WA4ONG | "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence;
NRA,ILA | it is a force. Like fire, it is a dangerous
j...@handheld.com | servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington

It is also quite acceptable, in their eyes, to hunt down and kill the rapist,
ex post facto. While I'm not exactly opposed to executing the scumbag, I do
believe in our "system of justice" enough to require a fair trial before the
hanging. What would concern me even more is that a rapist might decide that
"this bitch might try to kill me" and exercise the ultimate power trip (we all
agree that most rape is a power thing, don't we?).

When was the last time you heard a threat to the Third? The clear and stated
fact is that they do not believe there is a threat to the Second.

They supported the NAZIs because the ACLU hated Reagan even more than the
NAZIs.

The ACLU has actively pushed "gun control" -- just not lately. Read this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Xref: dg-rtp talk.politics.misc:67466 misc.education:1381
>Path: dg-rtp!dgcad!amdcad!sun!newstop!texsun!convex!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!unhd!pas
>From: pas@uunet!unhd (Paul A. Sand)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.education
>Subject: Re: ACLU
>Message-ID: <1991Jan10.031252.25167@uunet!unhd>
>Date: 10 Jan 91 03:12:52 GMT
>References: <11...@goofy.Apple.COM>
>Reply-To: p...@unhd.unh.edu (Paul A. Sand)
>Distribution: na
>Organization: University of New Hampshire
>Lines: 37
>
>[misc.education added to newsgroups]
>
>hr> -- Herman Rubin
>dc> -- David Casseres
>
>hr> [The ACLU] certainly do not support competition in education,
> preferring the socialist mess. [...]
>
>dc> And they have not endorsed your favorite school-voucher program,
> with its massive giveaway of tax dollars to a totally unregulated
> industry.
>
>As if those factors had something to do with the ACLU's opposition.
>'Fraid not.
>
>Here in New Hampshire, the town of Epsom recently passed a law allowing
>a $1000 property tax abatement to people (primarily parents) who
>"sponsor" children in private high schools or public high schools
>outside their local school district.
>
>Are these schools 'totally unregulated'? No, they must meet New
>Hampshire's current regulations for schools.
>
>Is it a 'massive giveaway' of 'tax dollars' to those schools? Hardly;
>it amounts to a net saving to the town, and the money goes to (stays
>with, more accurately) the parents (and other sponsors) to spend where
>they think it's best. We'll let slide for now the odious notion that
>letting people decide how to spend more of their own money is a
>'giveaway'.
>
>Now the key question: is the state chapter of the ACLU planning to
>file a lawsuit against this plan *anyway*? You betcha.
>--
>-- Paul A. Sand |
>-- University of New Hampshire | I ain't here on business, baby.
>-- uunet!unhd!pas | I'm only here for fun.
>-- p...@unhd.unh.edu |
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: dg-rtp!psinntp!rpi!think.com!wupost!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!lvc
>From: l...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
>Subject: Re: A 288 Page Book or BOR with no reference to RKBA???
>Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
>Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 14:17:19 GMT
>Message-ID: <1991Dec10....@cbnews.cb.att.com>
>References: <1991Dec10.0040...@netcom.COM>
>Lines: 376
>
>In article <1991Dec10.0040...@netcom.COM> feu...@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes:
>>
>>That's Ira Glasser's book "Visions of Liberty, The Bill of Rights for
>>All Americans". A copy of the Bill or Rights isn't even included in this
>>book. I think we can forget about the ACLU's defending the 2nd
>>Amendment.
>>
>>Ira Glasser is Executive Director of the ACLU.
>
>Read on.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Ira Glasser, Executive Director of the ACLU, responded thusly on October 30,
>1989 to an inquiry from Hal Berenson of Colorado Springs, Colorado, a former
>ACLU supporter,
>
>``We understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee to
>the states the right to maintain state militias as a countervailing force
>against an armed central government.
>
>``Back then, there was no state repository for weapons or any standing state
>militia, so in effect it was impossible to have a state militia unless people
>were allowed to keep arms.
>
>``But looked at in the contemporary context, we do not believe that the Second
>Amendment, or the purpose for which it was intended, confers an unlimited
>right upon individuals today to possess and use all manners of firearms,
>including handguns, AK-47s, etc. That does not mean that the government can
>constitutionally prohibit all weapons but it probably means that the
>government can reasonably regulate and limit their use.
>
>``The ACLU does not advocate gun control laws. But we do not oppose reasonable
>regulations on Second Amendment grounds because we do not think the Second
>Amendment bars such regulations.``
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The ACLU has sold it's name list to HCI.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The ACLU tried to get hollow-point bullets banned, even from use by
>police on the grounds they were "too lethal." The truth of the matter
>is that hollow-point bullets are LESS lethal than round nose bullets.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>ACLU Policy #47
>
>After sending a copy of the Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrasing Second
>Amendment" to several of the Southern California ACLU staff and bringing
>to their attention, the NRA suit against the California "assault weapons"
>ban, I received, in reply, a copy of their infamous policy statement #47
>(adapted to the Southern California chapter):
>
> We deplore the ghastly fact that in the life of this nation the use
> of handguns brings death to 60 men, women and children by accident--
> and 200 more by intent--every week.
> We concur with repeated rulings of every court that has ruled on
> the issue--including the U.S. Suprme Court--that the Constitution's
> Second Amendment provision for militia never has meant that all
> individuals have a right to own all kinds of firearms.
> We urge passage of federal legislation--and meanwhile, in its absence,
> the partial remedy of state law--to prohibit, with few and narrowly drawn
> exceptions, the private ownership and possession of handguns, much the
> way existing laws prohibit machine guns, grenades and cannons.
> We declare that Americans and their rights to life and liberty will
> face less danger in the presence of such laws and their enforcement
> than in the deadly, daily civilian shooting war around us now.
> The National ACLU gun control policy, adopted in 1967, calls for the
> reistration of firearms and the licensing of owners and dealers. The
> Union recommends the adoption of strong federal gun control legislation
> as a "necessary condition o fostering the atmosphere of open and fearless
> debate on which a free society rests."
> Both National ACLU and the Southern California affiliate base their
> policy provisions on long-standing interpretations of the Second Amendment
> by the U.S. Supreme Court, that the individual's right to keep and bear
> arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of "a well-regulated
> militia".
>
> (Adopted by Board of Directors in September 1976. See national ACLU
> policy #47, "Gun Control".)
>
>I recommend that all members of the ACLU write to their chapter and urge
>the ACLU to rescind policy #47 if not to defend the Second Amendment.
>You should cite the Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrasing Second
>Amendment". Also, cite the Ninth Amendment and the individual RKBA clauses
>of nearly every state Constitution most recognizing the RKBA for self
>defense. Ask them to justify their distortion of the Second Amendment
>and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it particularly as it relates
>to "assault weapons".
>
> The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates
> in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States,
> and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough
> that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
> in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for
> military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for
> service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
>
> -- Supreme Court, United States v. Miller et al., 307 U.S. 174
>
>Ask them about their claim that the ACLU "champions the rights of man
>set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution..."
>
>The national ACLU address is:
> American Civil Liberties Union
> 22 E. 40th St.
> NY, NY 10016
>
>In Southern California:
> ACLU Foundation of Southern California
> 633 South Shatto Place
> LA, CA 90005
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The ACLU has actively attacked the 2nd amendment by supporting a gun
>ban in Illinois.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I've entered portions of an article on the ACLU that appeared in a
>recent edition of REASON Magazine. The article is specifically about
>how the ACLU is abandoning its defense of the First Amendment, but
>generally about how it has abandoned the protection of civil liberties
>in favor of a liberal political agenda. After reading this article, it
>becomes clear why the ACLU does not, and will not, defend the Second
>Amendment.
>
>REASON is a very pro-liberty monthly magazine, generally considered to
>be in the libertarian camp. I am a subscriber, and a contributor to the
>REASON Foundation. I would highly recommend the magazine to anyone with
>a serious interest in individual liberty.
>
>--
>The First Shall be Last? (REASON Magazine, 10/90)
>Charles Oliver
>
>"For 70 years, the First Amendment has been the American Civil Liberties
>Union's chief client. In case after case, ACLU lawyers have argued for
>absolute free speech, for a press unfettered by government restrictions,
>and for the strict separation of church and state. Outside the
>courtroom, ACLU leaders have been among the most eloquent defenders of
>the libertarian principles embodied in the First Amendment.
>
>Now those principles face their strongest challenge in years. Public
>and politicians alike appear increasingly intolerant of free speech -
>whether the lyrics of The 2 Live Crew, the anti-abortion pronouncements
>of the Catholic Church, the art of Robert Mapplethorpe, the
>advertisements of tobacco companies, or the posters of antigay college
>students. There is abroad in the land a sentiment that many, many ideas
>are too dangerous to be expressed and that these ideas must be shouted
>down or, where possible, forbidden by law. The ACLU, it would seem, has
>plenty of work to do - both in the courtroom and out.
>
>So, what is the ringing battle cry of ACLU President Norman Dorsen? 'We
>are the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American First Amendment
>Union.'
>
>In recent years, the ACLU has adopted an expansive definition of 'civil
>liberties' that dilutes its absolutist commitment to free speech. The
>ACLU, critics say, is now more committed to goals such as comparable
>worth, government aid to the homeless, and nuclear disarmament than to
>defending the First Amendment.
>
>In 1988, attorney Mark S. Campisano documented the shift from the ACLU's
>'old agenda,' which he describes as 'the rights of free speech, free
>press, free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly and association,
>and freedome from official acts of racism.' In 1948, he reported, this
>agenda encompassed 94 percent of the ACLU's cases; by 1987 is accounted
>for only 45 percent.
>
>Critics complain that greed and left-wing ideology have corrupted the
>union. The ACLU, they fear, has diluted its message, compromised its
>mission, and, in some instances, abandoned its commitment to the First
>Amendment.
>
>'America needs a civil liberties union," says Harvard law professor
>Alan Dershowitz, a 25-year member of the ACLU who once sat on the
>group's national board of directors. 'It no longer has one.'
>
>Dershowitz notes that the ACLU didn't get involved in one of the most
>important pornography cases in years: Osborne vs Ohio, which involved a
>sweeping Ohio statute aimed at child pornography. This spring, the
>Supreme Court upheld the law, in the process greatly expanding the
>states' ability to ban pornography. Civil libertarians blasted the
>decision for enunciating a new theory of censorship - a theory that says
>that the government can ban possesion of child pornography not because
>the material itself generates crime but because allowing people to own
>it creates a market for material that grows out of crime.
>
>'And the ACLU wasn't in that case at all,' says Dershowitz. 'And yet,
>it's in every abortion case, and it's in every femenist case, and it's
>in every fetal rights case, and it's in every racial case defending the
>most extreme forms of quotas and affirmative action.'
>
>The ACLU has also taken heat from libertarians for some of the cases
>that it *does* take. Perhaps the most famous example began over a
>decade ago, when teenage immigrant Walkter Palovchak decided he did not
>want to return to the Soviet Union with his parents. The ACLU went to
>court on behalf of his family to force Walter to return to Russia.
>
>'It still strikes me as strange,' says Palovchak's attorney, Henry Mark
>Holzer, 'The ACLU has a children's rights project. Their attorneys
>argue that teenage girls are competent to have an abortion without
>parental consent, but a teenage boy can't choose the United States over
>a totalitarian state. The only answer that makes sense is that their
>decisions aren't based on civil liberties but liberal politics. The
>ACLU likes abortion, and it likes the Soviet Union.'
>
>More recently, the ACLU actually sued an editor over the contents of his
>newsletter. In 1984, the ACLU's Southern California affiliate won a
>$1.8 million settlement against the Los Angeles Police Department. The
>ACLU had sued the police department on behalf of 144 left-wing
>organizations and individuals who complained that they had been the
>targets of illegal surveillance.
>
>But, the litigation didn't stop there. Some of the information in the
>files had allegedly been funneled to the conservative Western Goals
>foundation and printed in the foundation's newsletter. Shortly after
>settling with the police, the ACLU sued Western Goals; John Rees, the
>editor of the newsletter; and the estate of of Western Goal's chairman,
>Rep. Larry McDonald (D-Ga.). "It's not the business of law enforcement
>to furnish information to individuals, even reporters," said Southern
>California ACLU attorney Mark D. Rosenbaum, according to the Wall Street
>Journal.
>
>'I can understand why the ACLU was concerned about the police keeping
>records on people who aren't connected with any crime. I can understand
>the suit against the LAPD,' says Rees's attorney Manual Klausner (who is
>a trustee of the REASON Foundation). 'But under what interpretation of
>the First Amendment could they sue the journalist? The ACLU took the
>position that Rees and other journalists don't even have the right to
>receive a newspaper clipping or other article in the public domain from
>the police. The implications of this position would undermine the
>ability of journalists to use the police as sources. In my judgement,
>we were defending the First Amendment against the ACLU.' (Western Goals'
>insurance company eventually forced the organization to settle out of court.)
>
>No issue more clearly demonstrates the new thinking within the ACLU
>than the group's reaction, or differing reactions, to recent attempts by
>some universities to ban sexually or racially insentive speech on their
>campuses.
>
>Last year, the Michigan affiliate of the ACLU brought the first lawsuit
>against one of these college codes. A federal district judge overturned
>the University of Michigan's speech restrictions on First Amendment
>grounds. The ACLU has now taken more than 20 cases across the country
>challenging student conduct codes that prohibit offensive speech.
>
>But two of the ACLU's largest affiliates aren't so sure about such
>challeges. In September 1989, the University of California revised its
>student conduct code to ban racial or sexual epithets on the
>university's nine campuses. The Northern and Southern California
>affiliates - which account for more than one-fifth of the ACLU's total
>membership - didn't challenge the code.
>
>Instead, they endorsed a policy that recognizes colleges can prohibit
>speech that creates 'a hostile and intimidating environment which the
>speaker knows or reasonably should know will seriously and directly
>impeded the educational opportunities of the individual or individuals
>to whom it is directly addressed.'
>
>Campus speech codes divided the Massachusetts affiliate for months,
>Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff reports that the debate was heated.
>One proponent of speech codes 'accused some of his opponents of giving
>free rein to white racists,' writes Hentoff. 'He claimed that the real
>issue is not speech, but white power.' Another advocate of speech codes
>'wondered whether the position of the First Amendment absolutionists
>"has something to do with who the victims of this kind of speech are."'
>
>Finally, this summer the board approved 16-14 a policy that called for
>colleges 'to minimize and eliminate attitudes and practices that create
>a hostile educational environment, but these measures must not include
>rules which prohibit and punish speech on the basis of its content.' It
>was not exactly a resounding victory for free speech.
>
>Because of the differing policies adopted by affiliates, the national
>board has appointed a committee to study the issue and decide how to
>deal with campus speech codes. 'I think the fact that they even
>appointed a committee forces one to question whether the national board
>is as committed to the First Amendment as it used to be," says Hentoff."
>
>...
>
>"'I think the changes started when the ACLU got involved in the civil
>rights movement,' says Lambert [Ed - Mark Lambert, former legislative
>director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union] 'That opened the door for
>all of these other issues that have nothing to do with the First
>Amendment. Today, when someone says that homelessness or comparable
>worth is not a civil liberties issue, the common retort is "Well, 30
>years ago some people didn't think civil rights was a civil liberties
>issue." Well, maybe it wasn't.'
>
>Civil liberties have usually been conceived as freedom from government
>coercion, including government-enforced segregation. But once Jim Crow
>laws began to fall, civil rights leaders started to demand government
>coercion - from anti-discrimination statutes to racial quotas - to
>ensure racial equality. That quickly created tensions between the
>ACLU's commitment to civil liberties and its involvement in civil
>rights. And in nearly every debate, civil liberties lost.
>
>In 1960, for example, the ACLU's national board opposed the inclusion of
>questions about race, color, or national origin on the nation's census
>forms. But once Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the board
>changed its mind. Census data, it held, provide the basis for programs
>'to combat discrimination in education, employment, and housing.' At
>first, the ACLU supported only voluntary answers to questions about
>race; now it says the census may make such questions mandatory. The
>group does, however, request that the government store the racial
>information apart from the personal items."
>
>...
>
>"Perhaps the most important result of the ACLU's plunge into civil
>rights was the change in its attitude toward quotas. Throughout the
>1940s and 1950s the group opposed racial quotas. In the 1970s the ACLU
>revered its stand and came out in favor of quotas. In fact, in 1977 it
>adopted its own quota system.
>
>Under this policy, the ACLU's national board must be 50 percent female
>and 20 percent minorities."
>
>...
>
>"Some believe that racial and gender quotas changed dramatically the
>nature of the boards and the nature of the ACLU. 'Election to the board
>used to be based on one's dedication to civil liberties. Members were
>elected because they had demonstrated an effective commitment to free
>speech and separation of church and state," says Dershowitz. 'But
>affirmative action changed all that. Some people were elected because
>they *were* women and because they *were* minorities. And they were told
>that they were there to represent women and minorities. Inevitably they
>formed caucuses for women's rights and minority rights within the
>ACLU....What the ACLU needs now is a civil liberties caucus.'"
>
>...
>
>"In the last 25 years, the ACLU's membership has sky-rocketed from
>around 70,000 to 300,000. But many long-time members worry that the
>recent recruits are mainly interested in the group's liberal politics,
>rather than civil liberties. 'They were advertising for members,
>*period*. They weren't trying to get members who were necessarily
>committed to civil liberties," says Hentoff.
>
>Former Iowa legislative director Lambert argues that the ACLU's stands
>on economic issues turn off promarket libertarians and conservatives who
>would support First Amendment rights. 'To recruit new members,' he
>complains, 'the ACLU buys the mailing lists of other liberal groups.
>They have more and more people joining who are just liberals, not civil
>libertarians. You have to worry that someday there'll be no one there
>whose top commitment is the First Amendment." A spokewoman for the
>national office says that the ACLU rents the lists of "like-minded"
>groups. When pressed for examples, she cites Greenpeace and Amnesty
>International. "
>
>[Ed - The article goes on to cover more on the ACLU's foray into
>economic issues, interference in private employer/employee
>relationships, and attempts to create a "right of access" to the media.
>I entered about 40% of the total text above. REASON Magazine is
>available at some better book stores, such as McKinzy-White here in
>Colorado Springs, or from Reason, P.O. Box 526, Mt. Morris, IL 61054]
>
>"'I'm still a member, and I still make my contribution because the ACLU
>still does some good,' says Dershowitz. 'But if things don't change, in
>10 years it may not be doing any good. In fact, it could become an
>enemy of free speech.'"
>
>Note: Attorney Dershowitz is 100% anti-gun.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l...@cbvox1.att.com
>"Fight fire with fire, I always say." -- Bugs Bunny
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Path: dg-rtp!psinntp!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!apple!well!rsl
>From: r...@well.sf.ca.us (Roy Stuart Levin)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Another misinterpretation of the SA
>Message-ID: <29...@well.sf.ca.us>
>Date: 16 Jan 92 17:04:24 GMT
>References: <1992Jan15.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
>Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
>Lines: 42
>
>
>A poster comments on the Univ. of Michigan's interpretation of the 2nd amend.
>in the B.O.R. :
>
>
>I dropped in at the Undergraduate Library to look up a paper when I saw a
>large display celebrating 200 years of the BoR. Naturally, I looked up what
>they had to say about the Second; thought I'd share it with you now: according
>to whoever made the display, the key is the phrase "well regulated" (sic) which
>they interpret to mean some governing body overseeing the militia(s). They
>go on to say that we already have thousands of "well regulated militias" (sic):
>the police departments. I'd laugh my ass off except that I keep remembering
>that UofM is supposed to be an institution of higher learning, not a place
>to be indoctrinated with HCI propaganda. The display also had the obligatory
>photo of a table full of "military-style semi-automatic assault weapons"
>taken at one of the Senate hearings on something-or-other along with a bid
>for more gun con
>n1
>
>
>If you laughed your ass off at the U of Mich. you'd piss in your pants if
>you saw the ACLU's "Public Relations Illustrated Poster Celebrating the
>200th anniverseray of the Bill of Rights." They engaged in a little Orwellian
>double think, and double talk, literally REWRITING THE BILL OF RIGHTS in this
>poster consolidating the first four amendments into three TOTALLY OMITTING
>ANY MENTION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT which obviously embarasses the hell out of
>them. It was for this reason I sent in my resignation from the ACLU. They
>consdidered their "politically correct" agenda much more important than the
>spirit of the constitution. I found the poster on the outside of our
>local public library, look for it there if you happen to stop by a public
>library. Orwell's warnings about statists rewriting history ring true
>today in our own country. I always said, the 2nd will be the 1st to go,
>followed by the 1st and 3rd. A la Tiennamen Square, when the professional
>military-men are sitting in their tanks and opposed by un UNARMED bunch of
>demonstrators with FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY placards, it is only a matter
>of the WILL of the soldiers to shoot. The question of POWER will have been
>already decided by the idiots who abandoned the protections of the Bill of
>Rights and turned in their weapons. In Tiennamen Square the soldiers had the
>will to shoot, in Red Square recently they did not, since most of them
>supported the democratic forces. In the future in our country, who knows?
>Napoleon and his troops had the will to shoot and he became emperor.
>I think Nixon was perfectly capable of giving the order to shoot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Xref: dg-rtp talk.politics.misc:127293 talk.politics.guns:40227 alt.activism:30871
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.activism
>Path: dg-rtp!psinntp!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!andy
>From: an...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
>Subject: Re: ACLU's "Campaign for the Bill of Rights '92"
>Message-ID: <1992Aug7.1...@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
>Sender: ne...@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
>Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
>References: <1992Aug6.1...@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <veal...@utkux1.utk.edu> <1992Aug7.0...@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 19:27:35 GMT
>Lines: 18
>
>In article <1992Aug7.0...@m.cs.uiuc.edu> ka...@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>ve...@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>>> It has been my understanding that the ACLU has not only sold its
>>>mailling list to HCI, but also contributed money to them.
>>
>>I find it very, very unlikely that the ACLU would donote money to HCI.
>
>The ACLU WAS a member of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.
>(That organization has since changed names, but was a group of groups,
>to coordinate their actions on an issue, not a group that acted on its
>own, as HCI is.) It may have been a founding member. It dropped its
>membership, perhaps because it didn't know what banning handguns had
>to do with civil liberties.
>
>-andy
>--
>UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA: an...@cs.stanford.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Newsgroups: misc.legal
>Path: dg-rtp!leonardo!meyers
>From: mey...@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
>Subject: ACLU vs 2nd Amendment (was Re: Pawns of the ACLU)
>Reply-To: mey...@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
>Organization: N/I
>Distribution: usa
>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 02:09:09 GMT
>Message-ID: <1990Sep17....@dg-rtp.dg.com>
>References: <1990Sep11.0...@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <13...@smoke.BRL.MIL> <57...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <11...@accuvax.nwu.edu> <1990Sep13.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> <58...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
>Sender: use...@dg-rtp.dg.com (Usenet Administration)
>Lines: 504
>
>In article <58...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>,
>shi...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (peter shirley) writes:
>>
>>mey...@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>>
>>>The ACLU's record on 2nd Amendment issues is also sad, and unmistakable.
>>
>>Is this true? I have asked for infro on this before and gotten NOTHING. The
>>2nd seems to be ignored by the ACLU. Anyone (on either side) have any facts?
>>
>>
>>Pete Shirley
>>Card Carying Member
>>
>>In Illinois and Indiana, I can ASSURE you the ACLU is not a pressure group
>>for the left (unless civel liberty is not interesting to the right-- I have
>>more respect for the intellectual right than that). I don't always like what
>>they do, but their overall record is VERY good. I don't know how it goes
>>in other states because I don't get their newsletter (and ACLU newsletters
>>are filled with facts about local cases taken and not taken).
>
>
>And in article <58...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>,
>hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
>>
>>I'm also an ACLU member. Almost invariably, I find diatribes against
>>the ACLU to be laced with misinformation and outright falsehoods.
>>
>>As regards the 2nd, I think it is true that it hasn't been a focus
>>for the ACLU and I believe it is a mistake, albeit an understandable
>>one. I'm trying to raise people's consciousness on it. Although
>>my interpretation is that it is primarily a state's right, it is
>>clear that the 2nd prohibits the Federal gov't from interfering
>>in private or state gun ownership. I've argued, I think persuasively,
>>to my friends in the ACLU, that an end-run around the 2nd sets the
>>precedent for an end-run around the rest of the Bill of Rights.
>>Ultimately, my argument is that, if gun-control is favored, the
>>solution is a Constitutional Amendment, not diluting Constitutional
>>protections.
>
>
>I have some information (offered below) that I believe to be factual: an
>excerpt from The Politics of the ACLU, and postings to talk.politics.guns
>earlier this year. I'll attempt a summary here: from the late 60's until
>1982, the (national) ACLU affirmatively supported gun control. Since 1982
>they have neither affirmatively supported it nor affirmatively opposed it.
>Ditto in California. I have no information on other state ACLU chapters.
>
>Now the diatribe [:-)] -- they support the rest of the B.o.R. affirmatively.
>Zealously! Ferociously! Sad. And unmistakable.
>
>==============================================================================
>
>Reprinted without permission from The Politics of the American Civil Liberties
>Union, by William A. Donohue, Transaction Publishers (New Brunswick, N.J.),
>1985 -- ISBN 0-88738-021-2 (hb), or 0-87855-983-3 (paper) -- pp. 259-260.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is one recommendation that the Union makes on how to stem crime:
>strong gun control legislation. It adopted its first gun-control policy in
>the late sixties, calling for strict federal legislation that would require
>the registration of firearms and the licensing of owners and dealers. One
>of the ACLU's major concerns was that any gun-control legislation should not
>discriminate against persons on the basis of moral or mental reliability.
>It specifically said that "to deny a license to any person convicted of any
>felony or ever committed to an institution by a court for reasons of alco-
>holism, narcotics addiction, or mental incompetence, or to any non-citizen,
>would be to deny both the wide variety among types of offenses classified as
>felonies and the possibility of rehabilitation." [210] It is doubtful that
>this policy is representative of liberal thought; it appears to be the sole
>position of the ACLU Board of Directors.
>
> In 1971 the Union took the position that the ownership of guns, any guns,
>aside from guns owned by the militia, was not constitutionally protected.
>Recognizing that it is not unlawful to own a gun, the board addressed the
>question of state regulation of firearms. Although it dropped its specific
>reference to the rights of convicted felons, alcoholics, drug addicts, and
>the mentally incompetent to own a gun, it nonetheless adhered to its previous
>reasoning when it declared that an applicant's "personal history" should not
>be a consideration for a gun permit. [211]
>
> The ACLU's objections to gun ownership led it to become a participating
>member in the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. In 1982, however, the board
>voted to change its status to that of an affiliate member of the organization.
>It's reasoning was political: It did not want to be publicly identified with
>the coalition on its letterhead, publicity, or research reports. [212] At the
>same board meeting, the Union ruled on police use of deadly weapons. The men
>and women in blue were summoned to establish new procedures in apprehending
>criminals. Nondeadly techniques, including alternatives to firearms, should
>be adopted by police officers; only as a last resort, the Union counseled,
>should deadly physical force be used. [213]
>
> It goes without saying that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and
>the ACLU do not share the same position on gun control. The NRA, a powerful
>Washington lobby, has been largely responsible for the lack of strict gun
>control legislation in the United States. It has been particularly disturbed
>by Union attempts to influence the status of gun control in local communities.
>For example, when the authorities in Morton Grove, Illinois, passed a law
>banning all handguns, the ACLU did not come to the defense of those who
>asserted privacy rights and freedom of choice. When the authorities in
>Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring a firearm in every home (allowing
>for religious-belief exemptions, physical disability, and convicted felon
>exceptions), the Union filed a suit in Federal District Court in Atlanta
>seeking to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. [214] Its behavior
>in both instances dovetailed with its policy position on gun control.
>
>Footnotes:
>--------
>[210] '76 Policy Guide, #43.
>[211] '81 Policy Guide, #45.
>[212] Board Minutes, 6/12-13/82.
>[213] Ibid.
>[214] "Law Requiring Firearms Challenged by A.C.L.U.", New York Times,
> 2 June 1982, p. A18.
>
>==============================================================================
>
>Path: xyzzy!dgcad!aeras!sun!newstop!sun-barr!apple!usc!venera!vaxa.isi.edu!ipser
>From: ip...@vaxa.isi.edu (Ed Ipser)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
>Subject: The ACLU on the Second Amendment (was Re: ACLU)
>Message-ID: <11...@venera.UUCP>
>Date: 23 Feb 90 05:05:20 GMT
>References: <17...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> <1990Feb15.2...@world.std.com> <16...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> <37...@paperboy.OSF.ORG> <1990Feb22....@athena.mit.edu> <1990Feb22.0...@athena.mit.edu> <18...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM>
>Sender: ne...@venera.UUCP
>Reply-To: ip...@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Ed Ipser)
>Distribution: usa
>Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
>Lines: 74
>Xref: xyzzy talk.politics.guns:6957 talk.politics.misc:50599
>
>In article <18...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> rbr...@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes:
>>j...@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) counters my claim:
>>>> The government runs such a sophisticated
>>>> military, which has access to arms beyond the reach of any independent
>>>> organization, that much of the meaning behind the checks-and-balances ideal
>>>> of the Second Amendment is really lost.
>>>
>>> This is just not true.
>>
>>Thanks for a thoughtful reply to my article. Having recently worked with
>>three co-workers who were ardent NRA members, I'm quite sensitive to your
>>arguments, and agree that gun bans by themselves are not the solution to
>>the senseless violence plaguing our society.
>>
>>Could someone post a concise summary of the ACLU's activities in handling
>>the gun-control issue? I don't think the facts of the case have really
>>been put up here.
>
>A year ago i wrote to the ACLU and asked their position on gun
>control and the Second Amendment and what organizations they supported
>on this issue. Their response was as follows:
>
> Dear Edward Ipser:
>
> Thank you for writing to us regarding the ACLU's position on gun control
> and the Second Amendment. The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's
> long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment 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.
>
> With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that the quality of
> dangerousness of such weapons justifies legal regulation which could
> substantially restrict the individual's interest in freedom of choice.
> Particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, sale,
> purchase or possession of guns, however, may raise civil liberties
> questions. Furthermore, police enforcement may encourage entrapment,
> illegal searches and other actions which could violate civil liberties.
>
> But the ACLU does not believe that there is a significant civil liberties
> alue apart from the Second Amendment in an individual's right to own or
> use firearms. Interests of privacy and self-expression may be involved
> in any individual's choice of activities or possessions, but these
> interests are attenuated where the activity, or the subject sought to be
> possessed, is inherently dangerous to others.
>
> It is not the ACLU's role to involve ourselves in social issues by finding
> a constitutional basis where there is none. Even though gun control might
> be considered a desirable social objectibe by some, the ACLU has never
> supported particular remedies for particular crimes, and, as such, we do
> not support gun control legislation.
>
> I hope this explains our position to your satisfaction.
>
> Sincerely,
> Sandra M. Jones
> Director of Development
>
>I don't think you will be able to get them to clarify their position on the
>Second Amendment (which i find extremely vague). I explicitely asked them
>whether they considered self-defense to be a lawful police purpose and whether
>the unorganized militia was a legimate military purpose but these questions
>were ignored. I suspect that this is a form letter.
>
>Perhaps other should write and ask such specific questions on their position.
>Perhaps even ask their opinion of the recent appeals ruling striking down
>the federal Gun Control Act.
>
>>The stampede toward gun control has me just as worried about civil liberties
>>as the stampede toward the death penalty and the "war on drugs" with its
>>search-and-seize tactics.
>
>You should be.
>
>==============================================================================
>
>Path: xyzzy!dgcad!aeras!sun!newstop!sun-barr!apple!xanadu!michael
>From: mic...@xanadu.com (Michael McClary)
>Newsgroups: ne.politics,talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: ACLU
>Message-ID: <1990Feb28.1...@xanadu.com>
>Date: 28 Feb 90 16:31:54 GMT
>References: <17...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> <1990Feb15.2...@world.std.com> <16...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> <37...@paperboy.OSF.ORG> <1990Feb22....@athena.mit.edu> <1990Feb22.0...@athena.mit.edu> <18...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM>
>Organization: Xanadu Operating Company, Palo Alto, CA
>Lines: 34
>Xref: xyzzy talk.politics.guns:7010
>
>In article <18...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> rbr...@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes:
>>
>>Could someone post a concise summary of the ACLU's activities in handling
>>the gun-control issue? I don't think the facts of the case have really
>>been put up here.
>
>This is not a summary, but an anecdote of a single incident, told my by
>a former ACLU supporter and contributor as she described her decision to
>stop her contributions.
>
>The reason was this series of events:
>
> - The office of a high official (in Washington DC?) of the NRA was
> burglarized. One of the items stolen (from a locked safe) was a pistol.
>
> - The police recovered the pistol when apprehending an armed robber.
>
> - The armed robber had used the pistol to shoot one of his victims.
>
> - The victim, aided by lawyers provided by the ACLU, sued the NRA
> official, claiming he was responsible for the victim's injuries.
>
>The timing was somewhat after the Polovchek case. (If anyone has
>more details on this, and/or more direct sources, I'd appreciate a
>message. Just called the person who told me this, and that's all
>she can recall.)
>
>>The stampede toward gun control has me just as worried about civil liberties
>>as the stampede toward the death penalty and the "war on drugs" with its
>>search-and-seize tactics.
>
>Items which worry me, as well. (It is because of the NRA-ILA's
>lobbying on the wrong side of THOSE issues, as well as its tendency
>to sell out other gun owners for people who are only interested in
>hunting, that I don't contribute to the ILA.)
>
>==============================================================================
>
>Path: xyzzy!dgcad!amdcad!ames!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!venera.isi.edu!ipser
>From: ip...@vaxa.isi.edu (Ed Ipser)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
>Subject: The Infamous ACLU Policy #47 (boo, hiss)
>Message-ID: <12...@venera.isi.edu>
>Date: 13 Apr 90 02:30:49 GMT
>Sender: ne...@venera.isi.edu
>Reply-To: ip...@vaxa.isi.edu (Ed Ipser)
>Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
>Distribution: usa
>Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
>Lines: 66
>Xref: xyzzy talk.politics.guns:7962 misc.legal:17456 talk.politics.misc:52640 alt.activism:2515
>
>
>
>After sending a copy of the Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrasing Second
>Amendment" to several of the Southern California ACLU staff and bringing
>to their attention, the NRA suit against the California "assault weapons"
>ban, i received, in reply, a copy of their infamous policy statement #47
>(adapted to the Southern California chapter):
>
> We deplore the ghastly fact that in the life of this nation the use
> of handguns brings death to 60 men, women and children by accident--
> and 200 more by intent--every week.
> We concur with repeated rulings of every court that has ruled on
> the issue--including the U.S. Suprme Court--that the Constitution's
> Second Amendment provision for militia never has meant that all
> individuals have a right to own all kinds of firearms.
> We urge passage of federal legislation--and meanwhile, in its absence,
> the partial remedy of state law--to prohibit, with few and narrowly drawn
> exceptions, the private ownership and possession of handguns, much the
> way existing laws prohibit machine guns, grenades and cannons.
> We declare that Americans and their rights to life and liberty will
> face less danger in the presence of such laws and their enforcement
> than in the deadly, daily civilian shooting war around us now.
> The National ACLU gun control policy, adopted in 1967, calls for the
> reistration of firearms and the licensing of owners and dealers. The
> Union recommends the adoption of strong federal gun control legislation
> as a "necessary condition o fostering the atmosphere of open and fearless
> debate on which a free society rests."
> Both National ACLU and the Southern California affiliate base their
> policy provisions on long-standing interpretations of the Second Amendment
> by the U.S. Supreme Court, that the individual's right to keep and bear
> arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of "a well-regulated
> militia".
>
> (Adopted by Board of Directors in September 1976. See national ACLU
> plicy #47, "Gun Control".)
>
>I recommend that all members of the ACLU write to their chapter and urge
>the ACLU to rescind policy #47 if not to defend the Second Amendment.
>You should cite the Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrasing Second
>Amendment". Also, cite the Ninth Amendment and the individual RKBA clauses
>of nearly every state Constitution most recognizing the RKBA for self
>defense. Ask them to justify their distortion of the Second Amendment
>and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it particularly as it relates
>to "assault weapons".
>
> The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates
> in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States,
> and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough
> that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
> in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for
> military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for
> service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
> -- Supreme Court, United States v. Miller et al., 307 U.S. 174
>
>Ask them about their claim that the ACLU "champions the rights of man
>set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution..."
>
>The national ACLU address is:
> American Civil Liberties Union
> 22 E. 40th St.
> NY, NY 10016
>
>In Souther California:
> ACLU Foundation of Southern California
> 633 South Shatto Place
> LA, CA 90005
>
>==============================================================================
>
>Path: xyzzy!dgcad!amdcad!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!zweig
>From: zw...@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (Johnny Zweig)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: The Infamous ACLU Policy #47 (boo, hiss)
>Message-ID: <1990Apr13.1...@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>
>Date: 13 Apr 90 19:43:40 GMT
>References: <12...@venera.isi.edu>
>Sender: ne...@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu
>Reply-To: zw...@cs.uiuc.edu
>Distribution: usa
>Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
>Lines: 36
>
>ip...@vaxa.isi.edu (Ed Ipser) writes:
>> The ACLU's infamous policy statement #47:
>>
>> We deplore the ghastly fact that in the life of this nation the use
>> of handguns brings death to 60 men, women and children by accident--
>> and 200 more by intent--every week.
>
>There are lots of ghastly facts that lots of people deplore. I never thought
>I'd find myself flaming the ACLU (in general I am a libertarian), but this
>is about the most horrible phrase I have ever seen issued by the ACLU. It
>flies in the face of what the ACLU stands for. They are there to protect
>civil liberties -- not to protect people from accidental nor intentional
>killing. Fighting for the rights of convicted killers who were denied due
>process is a shitty way of protecting safety (though I support it with all
>my soul). Trying to fight for the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie
>is another thing that does not directly promote safety. The point is that
>the Consitution appears to endorse a right to keep and bear arms so that
>every person can protect themselves against hostile invasion (isn't that
>more or less what a militia is all about?) and against hostility from the
>government (this argument is based mostly on the "flavor" of the Bill of
>Rights which tries to keep the newly-formed government from being as
>oppressive as that which it was intended to kick out); thus it becomes
>an issue of civil liberty to protect this right, even though it appears
>to the naive person to mean that more people will get hurt (*).
>
>Yikes! I'm writing my local chapter today!
>
>-Johnny Aghast
>
>(*) If guns are made illegal, how many gun-owners will take gun-safety
>classes and keep their guns in easy-to-find secure lockers? I think
>outlawing guns will mean more people will get hurt than do today -- both
>in terms of criminals running roughshod over unarmed civilians and in
>terms of the people who want to own guns for protection being less safe
>in their handling thereof. But this is an issue the NRA should argue
>about; the ACLU is not in a position selectively to protect civil
>liberties based on somebody's idea of promoting public safety.
>
>==============================================================================
>
>Path: xyzzy!dgcad!amdcad!ames!rex!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!Teknowledge.COM!unix!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhc!hpsemc!jat
>From: j...@hpsemc.HP.COM (Joe Talmadge)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Re: ACLU and guns (Was: Flag burners)
>Message-ID: <1724...@hpsemc.HP.COM>
>Date: 9 Apr 90 18:25:54 GMT
>References: <74...@goofy.Apple.COM>
>Organization: the HP VAB Lab
>Lines: 46
>
>David Casseres writes:
>> In article <21...@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> cc...@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
>> (Chris May) writes:
>> > Nevertheless, the ACLU claims that the militia function has been
>> > superseded by the National Guard, making the 2nd irrelevant.
>>
>> I do not believe the ACLU has said this. Reference, please? This sounds
>> like the claim that the ACLU was a financial contributor to HCI, which
>> caused a lot of ACLU bashing here a few weeks ago. It turned out to be
>> untrue.
>>
>> In fact the ACLU has very little to say about the 2nd. Everything I have
>> ever heard them say about it was essentially an explanation of why they
>> are not doing anything about it.
>
>I missed the discussion of a few weeks ago. Here is the story. ACLU
>policy #47 states:
>
>``The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and adopted
>demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective one, existing
>only in the collective population of each state for the purpose of
>maintaining an effective state militia... With respect to firearms,
>the ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal
>regulation which substantially restricts the individual's interest in
>freedom of choice.''
>
>At the 14 June 1980 B of D meeting, the board approved the following
>clarification: ``It is the sense of this body that the word
>`justifies' in the policy means we will affirmatively support gun
>control legislation.'' The ACLU was apparently a member of the
>National Coalition to Ban Handguns (I have a NCBH letterhead which has
>the ACLU listed as a sponsor; however, I don't know if it was just a
>local chapter of the ACLU or the national organization). However, the
>clarification, and positive support for gun control, was rescinded at
>the 24 June 1982 meeting.
>
>The national ACLU currently does not affirmatively support gun
>control. I've heard rumors that some chapters (Virginia chapters?)
>affirmatively support gun rights. If you'd like to find out about
>your local chapter, call them and ask.
>
>Joe Talmadge
>Member of the Board of Directors of the
>Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the ACLU
>
>I speak for myself. My views to not necessarily represent that of the
>board or the ACLU.
>
>==============================================================================
>
>Path: xyzzy!dgcad!amdcad!ames!rex!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!Teknowledge.COM!unix!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhc!hpsemc!jat
>From: j...@hpsemc.HP.COM (Joe Talmadge)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Re: ACLU and guns (Was: Flag burners)
>Message-ID: <1724...@hpsemc.HP.COM>
>Date: 10 Apr 90 02:37:17 GMT
>References: <74...@goofy.Apple.COM>
>Organization: HP Technology Access Center, Cupertino, CA
>Lines: 36
>
>w...@drutx.ATT.COM (VojakW) writes:
>>>From: f...@mace.cc.purdue.edu (J. F. Blake)
>>> You are correct, David. They dropped their role in NCBH over a
>>> year ago, to the best of my knowledge. I was interested in joining
>
>Actually, I would appreciate if you would send me any evidence that
>the ACLU affirmatively supported gun control after 1982.
>
>>I would agree with this. One question though. Why did the ACLU down-
>>grade their status? Were they feeling the heat from ACLU members who
>>were also gun owners? If so, is there anything that could be done to
>>change their position on the second admendment. i.e. Gun owners who
>>are not ACLU member writing them and saying, "I would support you,
>>But......."
>
>At the 1980 meeting, the affirmative support for gun control was
>reconsidered, and the Due Process Committee was asked to make a
>recommendation on the subject. At the 24 June 1982 meeting, the
>Committee recommended the footnote ["It is the sense of this body,
>that the word 'justifies' in this policy means we will affirmatively
>support gun control legislation"] be deleted from the policy. From
>Policy #47:
>
> The Committee's recommendation was based on the fact that no
> acceptable civil liberties rationale could be devloped for
> affirmative support of gun control legislation.
>
>The Committee suggested that there was no constitutional basis for the
>affirmative support of gun control, and that positive support
>encouraged the police to search "homes, cars, and persons."
>
>Joe Talmadge j...@hpsemc.hp.com
>Member of the Board of Directors of the
>Santa Clara Valley chapter of the ACLU
>
>My views are my own; they are not necessarily shared by the national
>ACLU.
>
>==============================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Path: dg-rtp!dgcad!amdcad!sun!exodus!newstop!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!delta.eecs.nwu.edu!ptownson
>From: ptow...@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson)
>Newsgroups: misc.legal
>Subject: Re: Pawns of the ACLU
>Message-ID: <12...@accuvax.nwu.edu>
>Date: 14 Sep 90 04:56:29 GMT
>References: <13...@smoke.BRL.MIL> <57...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <11...@accuvax.nwu.edu> <13...@smoke.BRL.MIL>
>Sender: ne...@accuvax.nwu.edu
>Reply-To: ptow...@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson)
>Organization: Northwestern U, Evanston IL, USA
>Lines: 103
>
>
>In article <13...@smoke.BRL.MIL> ma...@smoke.BRL.MIL (Matthew
>Rosenblatt) writes:
>
>> "Alan Reitman, associate director of the ACLU, provided me
>> with a copy of the Union's annual reports, gave me access
>> to its archives (including the FBI files on the Union), and
>> granted me an opportunity to interview him. Obviously, I
>> could not have done the required research for this book
>> without his assistance."
>> -- from _The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union,
>> by William A. Donohue, preface by Aaron Wildavsky
>> (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, Inc., 1985), p. xxiii.
>>
>>So on the one hand, an associate director of the ACLU helped Mr. Donohue
>>in preparing his book, but on the other hand, every publisher contacted
>>by Mr. Donohue -- except Transaction -- shied away from publishing it.
>
>The ACLU originally thought the book was going to flatter them, and
>make them out to be heros. Reitman was supposed to see to it that
>Donahue got the information fed to him in a certain way that would
>insure it. When it became very apparent in the final weeks prior to
>publication that the book was NOT going to be flattering or friendly
>at all, the ACLU turned on him.
>
>>Mr. Donohue does not mention any "lawsuit they filed and . . . harassment
>>they dished out." But I wouldn't put it past the ACLU to put aside their
>>commitment to "free speech" when their own ox was being gored.
>
>I went back to check some old notes of mine, from prior to the
>commitment by Transaction for publication. Apparently a lawsuit was
>threatened, *but not filed* and was to have been based on supposedly
>the use of some texts, speeches, etc for which permission to copy had
>not been obtained. McGraw-Hill was going to publish it originally, as
>was Beacon Press. Both publishers got the screws turned on them by the
>ACLU, which hinted at 'you support us, and we will support you the
>next time someone hassles you about something you publish. Basic Books
>gave the manuscript careful consideration, but upon contacting the
>ACLU to obtain some assistance in verifying the content, proof-reading
>the legal cites, etc was told 'it was really not in their best
>interest to publish it... (hint hint).
>
>>Yeah, well, the ACLU's rationale for opposing Walter Polovchak's request
>>to stay in the United States was the "civil liberty" of parents to control
>>their children. See, he was under 18 years of age, and therefore his
>>parents had the right to tell him to move back to the Evil Empire of the
>>Soviet Union with them, even though he preferred to breathe the free air
>>of the United States, heir to the American Revolution, the Last, Best Hope
>>of Mankind. Today, if there were a 17-year-old or even a 12-year-old "Wanda
>>Polovchak," and she were pregnant, the same ACLU would be fighting all-out
>>for her "civil liberty" to terminate her pregnancy without her parents'
>>consent or even knowledge. Talk about hypocrisy!
>
>As we know, 'civil liberties' is a buzzword, or catch-phrase here.
>When someone hints that civil liberties somewhere are being violated,
>we are all supposed to stop what we are doing and go ga-ga. I mean,
>its a great theme, how could anyone be opposed to civil liberties,
>right? The ACLU is a very left-wing, liberal organization first and
>foremost. Civil liberties come into play when it is convenient for
>them to use them. While the ACLU was defending the civil liberties of
>Polovchak's parents to control their children, they were at the same
>time (in their New Jersey chapter) fighting two parents from Chile who
>were visiting the USA with their 14 year old daughter. Like Polovchak,
>*she* wanted to stay here and her parents wanted to return to Chile.
>So whose side was the ACLU on? The daughter's, of course!
>
>If I didn't know better -- if I didn't know that the ACLU was a fine,
>noble organization with only our best interests at heart -- why, I'd
>be inclined to think they were very political, i.e.
>
> Soviet Union = good government Chile = bad government
>
>But of course we know the ALCU does not do business that way.
>
>On the television a few years ago (on the Donahue show), Jerry
>Falwell, that old fool, was a guest along with an ACLU guy from their
>national headquarters. The ACLU guy was railing about what an awful
>rip off it was to claim the name 'Moral Majority' for your
>organization, as if to say the rest of the population was immoral.
>Falwell asked him, is that any different than claiming to have a
>monopoly on understanding and interpreting the US Constitution, and
>the First Amendment in particular? And indeed, the more rabid of the
>ACLU supporters will make statements like "if you believed in civil
>liberties for all Americans then you would be a member of the ACLU" as
>if non-membership and a respect for and understanding of the US
>Constitution were mutually exclusive.
>
>>Any net.readers who still believe that the ACLU is anything but a pressure
>>group for the Left ought to find Mr. Donohue's book and read it.
>
>
>Oh sure, there are lots of folks who still believe the ACLU is first
>and foremost a civil liberties organization. After all, that's what
>their name says, doesn't it?
>
>I've tried to get a second copy of the book in a few bookstores around
>Chicago as a gift for someone ... I am unable to find it anywhere, so
>I may have to order it from AIM. Kroch and Brentanto's, the largest
>bookstore chain here refuses to stock it. It is almost impossible to
>find.
>
>
>PT
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The American Civil Liberties Union said today that the freedom
to bear arms must be sacrificed to the more important freedom of
'free and fearless debate on which our free society rests.'"
-- Associated Press, June 14, 1968