NRA Joins ACLU Lawsuit Against NSA

cold fjord writes with this excerpt from The Hill: "The National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit on Wednesday to end the government's massive phone record collection program. In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a 'national gun registry.' 'It would be absurd to think that the Congress would adopt and maintain a web of statutes intended to protect against the creation of a national gun registry, while simultaneously authorizing the FBI and the NSA to gather records that could effectively create just such a registry,' the group writes. ... In its filing, the gun-rights group claims that the NSA's database would allow the government to identify and track gun owners based on whether they've called gun stores, shooting ranges or the NRA. 'Under the government's reading of Section 215, the government could simply demand the periodic submission of all firearms dealers' transaction records, then centralize them in a database indexed by the buyers' names for later searching,' the NRA writes."

Comments

So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

When the NRA and ACLU both oppose something, you know it's bad for everyone.

Re:So it has come to this

[Nadaka]

I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

Re:So it has come to this

[NatasRevol]

Than the 5M or so NRA members?

Doubtful.

Re:So it has come to this

[clay_shooter]

but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach.

The NRA is a citizen funded organization that takes on legal issues through legislation and litigation. I haven't seen any evidence that backs up your assertion the NRA advocates for violent resolution of issues.

Re:So it has come to this

[interkin3tic]

It's more of a cultural divide than a ideological divide between the two. The ACLU really isn't pro gun control. Look at their wikipedia page. They've opposed several gun control measures based on privacy issues.

I know some gun rights advocates dislike them for their stated interpretation of the second amendment, but I really can't fathom how they get upset at that position. Nor can I understand how gun rights advocates get mad at them for not really working to uphold the second amendment. The NRA is a more powerful organization than the ACLU and exclusively concerns itself with the second amendment. The group to get mad at for picking and choosing amendments I think is the NRA, though I think the present story indicates how dumb it is to set up an adversarial relationship with other rights groups. It's us vs the government, not second amendment activists vs other amendment activists.

Anyway, it's sadly conservatives vs liberals, which is arguably dumber even than disagreeing about which amendments are most important. But on the bright side, it looks like maybe both are teaming up against big brother.

Re:So it has come to this

[ajs]

Are you asking for evidence of donation or of the ACLU doing far more good than the NRA? Both seem to be odd questions.

The NRA claims that protecting gun ownership protects civil rights by empowering the individual to defend themselves against the government (we'll ignore, for a moment that nothing could be further from the truth, and everyone in this nation, armed or not is a heartbeat away from a smart bomb at their breakfast table, or that you can be financially and socially ruined without ever having the opportunity to shoot back). Let's take the NRA's claim at face value and assume that they are 100% correct.

They still only defend the status quo. Having a gun doesn't undo the erosion of rights due to the corrosive influence of the re-election cycle in Washington. The ACLU seeks to actively move the line of civil rights back to where it started, and hopefully even a bit further through the courts and activism.

Now, the ACLU and the NRA happen to disagree over the interpretation of the 2nd amendment (FWIW, I think that was the stupidest call the ACLU ever made) but even when they disagree they're still nominally working toward the same goal (the ACLU isn't trying to prop up the gun industry, but I'm talking about implied goals, here), so it's pretty easy to judge which of them objectively makes the most progress...

Re:So it has come to this

[TimMartin6233]

The ACLU has argued an incredible number of cases in the Supreme Court and won a good number of them. Brown vs board of education, roe v wade, miranda, scopes, etc. I would put them on the "good" side of all of those cases but your opinion might differ.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

The ACLU has argued an incredible number of cases in the Supreme Court and won a good number of them. Brown vs board of education, roe v wade, miranda, scopes, etc. I would put them on the "good" side of all of those cases but your opinion might differ.

I would put ACLU on the "good" side, but not good enough. Historically, their position has been that the Second Amendment does not deserve the protections due all the others.

If they dumped that single, grossly hypocritical position, I would support most of their efforts. (Though not all... there have been a few times when they backed ridiculous ideas in the name of "rights" that are nowhere to be found in the law or the Constitution.)

Re:So it has come to this

[Arker]

I havent donated to the NRA in decades. They are too soft on the second amendment. The fact that even they recognise this has gone too far speaks volumes.

Re:So it has come to this

[ackthpt]

but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach.

The NRA is a citizen funded organization that takes on legal issues through legislation and litigation. I haven't seen any evidence that backs up your assertion the NRA advocates for violent resolution of issues.

If the NRA does not use it's constitutional right to seek redress in this matter, I really and forced to wonder exactly what would the government need to be doing for them to actually dust off their rifles and defend their liberties. This isn't about gun owner rights, its about the government running amok.

This isn't the first time the US government has run amok. I keep having this feeling the 2nd amendment defence is all about collecting toys, collectors items, things to shoot Stop signs with, etc. and has nothing to do with confronting an unjust government.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"... but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach."

Absolute nonsense. The NRA is the biggest and richest lobbying organization in the United States. They fully advocate having and following reasonable laws.

It is true that many members of the NRA would have us use force against a government run amok, but it is also true that nearly all of them view that as an absolute last resort. Not the first, as you imply.

Re:So it has come to this

[orgelspieler]

Have you even looked at the cases the ACLU has fought? There's no attacking rights going on. They even supported Jerry Falwell, for fuck's sake. And that was AFTER Falwell said 9/11 was the ACLU's fault.

Re:So it has come to this

[mspohr]

Kent State

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"You do know that all amendments are not equals,"

When it comes to the first 10 amendments, I know no such thing. Because, in fact, it isn't true. All of the first 10 Amendments have equal status in law and in principle.

"... and that people have the right to prefer some over others, right"

Certainly. But that has nothing to do with my point.

The ACLU says this:

"The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For more information, please read our statement on the Second Amendment."

And yet... political and legal history, including notes from our Founders as well as common law, all establish that this is simply not true. The right to bear arms -- as recently re-affirmed by the Supreme Court a couple of years ago -- is an INDIVIDUAL right. There is really no question as to this. It is made clear both by the historical record and the highest court in the land. Therefore, they base their position on a lie, and it IS hypocritical.

I did not say they had no right to take that position. What I stated was that it makes them hypocrites. It does.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"The ACLU disagrees with your position on what the 2nd amendment means in the first place. Unlike you, I'm guessing, they don't agree that it was intended to protect individual gun ownership."

They state as much in their FAQ on the subject. (See the FAQ link on the page linked to above.) But that has nothing to do with my point.

History and the Supreme Court BOTH say (SCOTUS said it in so many words in yet another ruling less than 2 years ago), that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. So they can take whatever position they like. My point was: that position is based on a lie, and maintaining that position makes them hypocrites.

Re:So it has come to this

[hutsell]

I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

This is awesome vindication from a personal perspective. I've been an active, card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU for more than a decade and could never quite understand how most members of each organization could dislike each other so much. Although I never went out of the way to keep it a secret from either side, I had a tendency to avoid conflict with members when they would express their blanket dislike of the other organization — due to when it was known, I would get what I felt was undeserved hostility.

Occasionally I regret not taking a stronger stand and being a little more outspoken about my position, especially in light of recent events.

Re:So it has come to this

[Daniel Dvorkin]

What makes you think the US Military, Cops, Sheriffs, etc. would attack their own people?

I was talking with a friend from Serbia about this a while back; for obvious reasons, he has a perspective on such matters that most Americans don't. I expressed my opinion that at least half, maybe more, of the US military would refuse to go along with an imposition of martial law against the US population, which would make such an action difficult or impossible. His answer gave me a lot of food for thought:

"When Milosevic cracked down, half the Army deserted overnight. Of those who were left, about half were too dumb to know what was going on, and the other half were the assholes, you know, the crazy ones who just wanted to kill people and they didn't care who. So Milosevic shipped the dumb ones off to border areas where they wouldn't get in the way, and then had the crazy ones go out and recruit more crazy ones, petty criminals and psychopaths who just didn't give a shit. And those were the ones who did the killing."

He was firmly of the opinion that the same thing would happen here. I really, really hope he's wrong ... but I can't say I'm as confident as I was before having that conversation.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

and everyone in this nation, armed or not is a heartbeat away from a smart bomb at their breakfast table

Off topic I know, but I want to respond to that line of reasoning.

If government wants to oppress, it will prefer quiet methods where it deals with small numbers of dissidents at a time without risking mass rebellion. From bombs to troops, to armed police, to thugs with sticks, to group of men with badges, to even just one person with a cap on his head telling you to get in the transport truck -- at each level of disarmament, government is able to use quieter and cheaper methods of oppression. What an armed citizenry does is raise the stakes and take away some of those quiet options. Government is then forced to choose between civil governance or a level of violence that awakens the nation. It raises the financial cost of oppression, too. It's not a cure-all and not a guarantee, but it is one among a number of barriers against tyranny. Having grandparents who came from a country where a stray word could put you in jail, I personally think the more barriers the better.

Re:So it has come to this

[Dare nMc]

>My point was: that position is based on a lie, and maintaining that position makes them hypocrites.

Many of their positions are at odds, at how the SCOTUS has ruled in the past. Taking a position on what the constitution means, that differs with what the SCOTUS ruled, or on how meanings have changed in the last 250 years doesn't make it a "lie" or make them "hypocrites". And for the record I agree with your position on the second amendment, but I try to understand others positions and when I disagree with them to do so without resorting to name calling.

Re:So it has come to this

[ShanghaiBill]

ACLU doesn't defend 2nd Amendment cases because their resources are limited and the NRA is there & well-funded for just that purpose.

WRONG The ACLU does not defend 2nd Amendment rights because they do not believe it is an individual right. The believe it is a collective right of the states to have a national guard.

From www.aclu.org: the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

I would agree with you except that I am not fighting a battle at all. Just making an observation.

For the record, ACLU has in fact recently started to realize the hypocrisy of their position, and change it. They even backed a couple of people in gun-possession cases.

While I do not believe this completely absolves them of their hypocrisy, it is a start.

And I agree: they do an awful lot of good. I'm just saying they could do better.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

Many of their positions are at odds, at how the SCOTUS has ruled in the past. Taking a position on what the constitution means, that differs with what the SCOTUS ruled, or on how meanings have changed in the last 250 years doesn't make it a "lie"...

Correct. Their position on the matter has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter. I did not claim that it did.

The FACTS are what make it a lie. The idea that the right to bear arms is a "collective" right is a falsehood. The FACTS make it so, not their position.

Therefore: to take that position in the face of the demonstrable truth is to lie. If not to others, then to oneself.

Re:So it has come to this

[Darinbob]

I don't think history has said this unambiguously, or that the "founding fathers" supported the individual right (maybe a subset of them did). When it comes to anything in the constitution, there was no unanimous agreement amongst the founders. In the early 1800s during the first state court cases involving the 2nd amendment there were competing decisions regarding individual versus collective rights, so there were differences of opinions then even by people who had been of adult age during the revolution.

The "well regulated militia" was not put into the amendment by accident, and the meaning of "militia" was very well understood to be the civilians who could be called up to war, the idea of a standing army or voluntary army came about after the revolution. At the same time even for non-militia use, hunting was an essential part of life whereas today hunting is just a hobby. Plus the need for self defense in the sparsely populated colonies and frontier was important. So the second amendment, confusingly, is both about a militia and not about a militia. I think that the confusion could be intentional by the authors or a compromise.

The bill of rights were also initially intended to be limitations on federal power and they were not widely acknowledged to be limitations on the individual states. It was later with the 14th amendment that the bill of rights (the first 8 anyway) really began to be treated as limitations on the states themselves (it took some more court decisions though to cement this).

In other words; the pro-gun and anti-gun are both right and both wrong. This is not a black and white issue, and even in history it has been very murky. Certainly there was never any unanimity even by the constitution writers.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"I don't think history has said this unambiguously, or that the "founding fathers" supported the individual right (maybe a subset of them did). When it comes to anything in the constitution, there was no unanimous agreement amongst the founders."

Then you are in error. Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention in 1787 report that an individual right to bear arms was nearly unanimously supported. There may have been one exception. So we are talking about a support rate of over 98% (there were 55 delegates).

Further, that meaning was made crystal clear during the debates prior to ratification by the states. The INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms was guaranteed as a safeguard against a Federal army.

The "well regulated militia" was not put into the amendment by accident, and the meaning of "militia" was very well understood to be the civilians who could be called up to war, the idea of a standing army or voluntary army came about after the revolution.

I am sorely tempted to write "No shit, Sherlock." I did not claim it was accidental. But you appear to be ignoring the difference between "the militia" (which was well understood to be every able-bodied male between approximately 14 and 55, depending on who you asked) and a well-regulated militia. The "regular" militia, by definition, was not "well-regulated". The words "well-regulated" indicate a standing army.

"So the second amendment, confusingly, is both about a militia and not about a militia. I think that the confusion could be intentional by the authors or a compromise."

There is nothing in the least "confusing" about the Second Amendment, if you read it as originally intended. I repeat (because I wrote this in reply to someone else earlier):

The founders were terrified of the necessity for a standing army. They viewed it (as the historical record shows extremely clearly) as the single biggest threat to a democratic or republican government. After all... they had just fought a way against the army of their own government in order to gain their freedom. Yet they felt that had to have an army.

So: "A well-regulated militia" (i.e., a standing army), "being NECESSARY" (not desirable or in any way good) "to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE" (not the army) "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Another repeat: "The People" shows up in various places in the Constitution. EVERY TIME, without fail, it clearly means you and me. Can you explain to me why, then, they would intend the same words here to mean something different? Do you think they were idiots, or that they garbled their words in this sole part of the document?

I think not.

This *IS* a black and white issue. It is about as black and white as they get.

Re:So it has come to this

[philip.paradis]

I'm a firm believer in individual gun rights, and therefore I am most assuredly not speaking against our shared core beliefs on this topic, but I believe that historical accuracy is critical when discussing these matters. The term "well regulated" does not imply a standing army. Instead, in the context of the language of the period, it means "disciplined" or "well trained."

Re:So it has come to this

[Xest]

"I don't know why you were modded funny. The NRA is widely perceived in the gun rights community as far too willing to compromise."

Exactly, that's what's funny.

Re:So it has come to this

[couchslug]

"everyone in this nation, armed or not is a heartbeat away from a smart bomb at their breakfast table,"

There aren't nor will there ever be nearly enough smart bombs and there are very few aircraft to deliver them. Those aircraft have to get off the ground and land without getting plinked. Aircraft are actually quite tender and delicate (A-10 excepted).

Anyone with military experience, or who is awake, knows that the relatively tiny government forces (including the military, which would be split in a revolt) are dispersed and not sufficient to occupy the US. Iraq is tiny by comparison and keeping a lid on it was tough enough.

We need more "liberals" to arm themselves.

The refusal to own tools of power is just as much acceptance of the status quo as is the sheeplike support of the government by many firearms owners. If you won't kill for your freedom when necessary you deserve to be a slave because you volunteered by submission. Pacifism is weakness against Serious People, because they give no fuck about your childish moral example. (Ghandi worked against the effeminate British, but a serious opponent would simply have murdered him in prison.)

BTW as an NRA member, I WANT the NRA and gun industry to cooperate. It's a match made in heaven, and I support vendors who donate a percentage of profit to the NRA.

you know hell has frozen over

[halfEvilTech]

When the NRA, EFF, ACLU and the author of the [un]Patriot Act are all against it.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[i kan reed]

Not, especially. Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics, all 3 organizations share the stated goals of protecting citizens' rights.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Antipater]

"By your powers combined, I am Captain Lobbyist!"

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nadaka]

Actually... the ACLU does not defend the 2nd amendment. They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.

Now, the ACLU does a ton of other great stuff, but they are not perfect.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[amstrad]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Quila]

Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics

You mean influences US politics on behalf of its millions of members, and millions more like-minded non-members. Kind of like the ACLU.

What you said is like saying the EFF only does what it does in order to prop up Internet services companies because they profit from a free and open Internet.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[GameboyRMH]

That would be a reasonable assessment if the EFF took positions contrary to that of most of its members but beneficial to the ISPs.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Ksevio]

It's kind of a waste of resources for the ACLU to defend 2nd amendment cases. The NRA and other groups are eager to fill the gap whereas there are fewer groups for other civil liberties.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[X0563511]

They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.

How can one interpret those as different things? A militia is exactly that - private citizens. If it's not composed of private citizens, it's an army and not a militia.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Charliemopps]

The 2nd amendment is THE civil liberty, second only to freedom of expression. It's what prevents the government from simply ignoring the constitution as we have a right to take up arms against them should they get out of hand. It's laughable that people still think the 2nd amendments about hunting or defense. It's about the ability of the citizens to take up arms against their government. Plain and simple.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[JesseMcDonald]

Then what ... is a "well regulated militia"? One guy regulating himself?

In the language of the time, it meant every able-bodied male of military age, with the training and supplies necessary to operate as an effective military force in time of need. There was no question of whether weapons were limited to the militia, because the militia was everyone deemed capable of using them.

In any case, the right is not restricted to the militia: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "The people" is an even more all-inclusive term than "well regulated militia".

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[T.E.D.]

Let's not be disinenuous. I think we all know that the NRA is quite a bit more than a meer club, and is in a whole different class than the ACLU.

The closest analog really is the ASL (anti-saloon league) from a century ago. This organization didn't meerly lobby for its point of view, but organized its members (small in number, but very zealous) to surgically target specific close congressional races with emotion-laden propaganda to take out any congressman in all but the safest wet districts who didn't brainlessly toe the current ASL line. The result was that nearly every elected representative lived in mortal fear of them, and Prohibition was put into the freaking Constitution, even though a majority of the country opposed it. They were practically a political terrorist organization.

Sound familar?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nidi62]

What a lot of people seem to ignore or forget is that a militia, by definition, is a group of people armed with their own personal weapons. So what the Second Amendment really says is "Because a trained and capable militia is necessary for the defense of the state, the people need to have access to and possess weapons so that they can fight in the even that the militia is called up". People want to focus on the first part of the Second Amendment and argue that it applies only to things like the National Guard(which is not a militia), but the first part is in truth only a justification for the second part, which is the crux of the Amendment.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Tailhook]

5 million dues-paying members. Better than 1.5% of the population of the US voluntarily buy an NRA membership. When you exclude organizations that have as their mandate establishing or protecting some government provided benefit there are damn few left with that level of direct citizen participation. To my mind that puts the NRA among the most legitimate pressure groups in existence.

This isn't some endowment funded outfit that claims to represent some part of the population. Millions pay to be counted. So the next time you feel that malcontent rage bubble up inside when your statist-in-chief fails to march the nation into the gun-free romper room, try to understand that they're facing people — large numbers of actual people — that think otherwise and put their names and their money behind their rights.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Your definition makes no sense. In any event, both armies and militias require government approval. Here's a clause from Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, enumerating Congressional powers:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Thus, the Second Amendment was quite clearly intended to prevent Congress from using its regulatory authority to _prevent_ States from establishing a militia--to protect itself from insurrection, especially insurrection by slaves.

Today we have a strong free market bias, but the debates at the constitutional convention were about what the Congress could prohibit, not how it could protect liberties. For example, could Congress limit textiles imports? Remember, this was the age of mercantilism, and the idea that you'd want to restrict certain behaviors for long term gain was predominant. Almost everything in the early days was about how and when the federal government could restrict state powers, because it was assume that states were sovereign governments in their own right. The new federal system created very thorny legal questions because it granted the federal government many more powers than it had under the Articles of Confederation.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jane Q. Public]

"The notions of checks and balances, democracy, social contracts, rule of law, basic self-determination, all were impossible until the 16th century when someone exploded some lead down a metal tube."

Yes, pretty much. Your sarcasm is lost in a sea of facts.

"Tell us more about how human nature depends on a specific piece of technology."

It isn't about "a piece of technology". It's about human rights, and a basic principle. If you don't have a RIGHT to defend yourself, you don't have any real rights. Period. History has shown that to us that over, and over, and over again... so many times, it's a wonder that it has to be repeated to you.

Would you rather have us repeat that history? You go ahead, and good luck with that. I'll take a pass on that.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Zak3056]

That is admittedly better than how the NRA counts to 10... 2.

You do grasp that the National Rifle Association has a rather more narrowly defined mission than the American Civil Liberties Union, right?

I've never understood comments like yours--the NRA defends other civil liberties incidental to the exercise of the 2nd (for example, their support of Citizens United was an instance of supporting the first amendment as a means of supporting the second). The ACLU is supposed to stand for ALL civil liberties. It self describes itself thusly: The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. It's lack of support--indeed, it's hostility toward-- the second amendment is in complete opposition to its stated goals (largely because of its identification as a "right wing" issue).

I don't like some of the things that the ACLU does, but in general I see them as a force for "good." The reason I won't support them is their hypocrisy on this issue. The reasoning they use to claim the 2nd amendment is a "collective right" can be applied to any other right enjoyed by "the people," and that's downright dangerous.

Please note, that I don't believe the ACLU needs to be out there defending gun rights cases--given their broad mission, I don't think this would be the best use of their resources. But a simple statement along the lines of, "we support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and refer those seeking our assistance to one of the many single issue organizations in this area" would go a long way toward bringing gun owners back into the fold.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jane Q. Public]

"But that isn't what it says.

It says 'a well-regulated militia.' At most, it could be seen as making sure states have a local army sufficient to defend against any oppressive actions by the federal government - but it certainly isn't there to allow citizens or self-appointed groups of citizens to declare revolution if they feel oppressed."

This has been one of the most common myths about the Second Amendment. And it's as understandable as it is wrong.

The key words are "well-regulated". A well-regulated militia is a standing army. The necessity of having a standing army WAS THE REASON civilians are guaranteed the right to arms... to fight off that standing army if need be. After all, this is what the founders most feared. They had just waged a war against their own government's standing army, to win their freedom. They wanted to guarantee that if it happened again, The People would win. Again.

So looking at it from that perspective, the wording actually makes sense: "A well-regulated militia" (a standing army) "being NECESSARY to the security of a free state" (we might not like it but we must have one), "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The People" is used elsewhere in the Constitution. Every time, it means you and me. Not some police or military force. There is no other place in the Constitution where the founders garbled their words. The only reasonable conclusion, then, is that "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment are you, and me.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Asymmetric warfare has been waged successfully numerous times throughout history, and the more weapons the general populace holds, the higher the chances of success.

The M1 would be rather useless in a civil war today anyways - it already is mostly useless in the war on terror as well. I used to serve in an armored unit by the way, and tank crews know very well that if they run into infantry, especially in an urban environment, they're fucked. This isn't command and conquer where you simply order your tank to run over the bad guy. It's actually rather trivial for dismounted units to disable tanks (that scene from Saving Private Ryan comes to mind, though today there are easier methods.) A well aimed bullet inside of the turret is good enough to disable that component. It still has a 50 cal and m240 at its disposal at this point, but for the remainder of the battle it isn't the devastatingly destructive force it was built to be.

The most effective weapon I think they would have in a civil war would be the same one that is the most effective in the war on terror: the drones. Drones have by and large replaced the M1. However unlike in the middle east, there are a lot more tools here that could be useful against those drones, and it would be quite a bit more difficult to determine friend from foe as well, which is critical for the success of a drone campaign.

In the end what would be required for pacification of any grassroots revolution is to take political control over the dissidents. That will be very hard to do if all of them are carrying small arms. Imagine sending police walking uniformed into a known hostile neighborhood, knocking on doors arresting people...yeah. And killing all of the dissidents wouldn't really win you any favors, especially if your goal is to have a functional economy afterwards.

Re: you know hell has frozen over

[Quila]

As far as lobbying and lawsuits go, NRA is a single-issue version of the ACLU, necessary because he ACLU has chosen to not recognize that one amendment.

Not that the NRA does great on that. They're a little too willing to accede to the rights-violators' demands. The GOA is better in this.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nadaka]

The problem is that Corporations are given a right that people do not have. Very large personal donations must be disclosed and are a matter of public record. Very large corporate donations are anonymous. You see the difference here? And in the case of corporate donations, they are not a group coming together for a common political purpose, but are instead thrust together for varied economic purposes.

If a corporation donates to a political cause anonymously... The shareholders can not vote their outrage at board meetings. The shareholders can not dump their stock. The employees can not quit their jobs. Their customers can not boycott their products. It allows a very small minority within the corporation to spend the money of other people for political cause without repercussion. This specifically disenfranchises the political and economic freedom of multitudes of individuals in very real ways.

Money is not speech and corporations are not people. Citizens United is an abomination.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[RoboRay]

Thank you so much for supporting my position so well...

Of course all those notions of checks and balances, democracy, social contracts, rule of law and basic self-determination all existed prior to the common availability of firearms.

The practice of those notions, unfortunately, was extraordinarily rare until firearms put the weak on equal standing with the strong. We have all those things today, things to be proud of, in great part due to guns.

Sic semper tyrannis

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Such tracking is exactly the kind of thing the King of England would have used against the Founding Fathers, and would have been banned by them after the Revolution, which would have been very much less likely with "metadata" gathering and tracking of who called whom, whether it be gun shops or other supporting people.

Saying "metadata" isn't protected is the biggest fraud in recent history. We must continue backing the government away from building the tools of tyranny. It makes no difference that they "use it wisely" currently. Don't let it get started at all.

This is for the weak-minded who get upset over "absolutism". Go read the Bill of Rights.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Zcar]

Which, grammatically, isn't explanatory not operative. The operative part of the 2nd Amendment is, in full, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In modern construction and words (based on Supreme Court decisions, specifically Heller and Miller) the full amendment would be something like, "Because a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of military usefulness shall not be infringed." The first clause only explains why it's not be infringed; it doesn't impose a limit upon it.

Well, Miller did somewhat limit it based on the militia clause, by saying a firearm which wasn't demonstrated to be militarily useful was not protected, implying that if it had been demonstrated to be militarily useful it would be protected. So, under Miller, an assault rifle (obviously of military usefulness) would be protected but maybe not a break action shotgun. It's an odd case, at any rate, since Miller had died before it reached the Court and his side didn't argue before the Court.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Nadaka]

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

NRA spokeman quote

[Sponge Bath]

Pew! Pew! Pew!

Kinda batshit of the NRA

[themushroom]

But in this instance it's for the common good. Serandpity on that. :)

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Sponge Bath]

I serandpity the fool!

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[erroneus]

I'm a non-gun owner but I recognize and understand the value and the importance of the right. And ironically, the moment I no longer have the legal right to own a gun is the very moment I will seek to own one. I see gun ownership as a natural right, not a legal one. The right to defend one's self is a natural right and I will exercise it when I feel the need to. (I am lucky. I have never needed to. But I'm not foolish enough to think I will NEVER need to. And yes, I know I am actually making the argument that I need to buy a gun NOW, but that's another talk.)

What I find more threatening than not owning a gun is that people KNOW I do not own a gun or don't have one with me at the moment. I will NEVER eat at Denny's again knowing that they are a "gun free kill zone." It's disgusting and obvious that making it an offense to carry in a Denny's makes everyone within MUCH more vulnerable to attack by criminals who don't care about the signs on the doors. I know why they do it -- because a bunch of frightened idiots might feel uncomfortable eating in such places. Trouble is, you only need to google "denny's gun free zone" to find a long list of news stories about Denny's restaurants being robbed at gunpoint and people getting shot and killed by actual criminals. (There is also the occasional story about an illegal gun carrier thwarting a crime in Denny's.)

Let's all agree that having guns is dangerous. (The discussion that follows that agreement should be about how dangerous it actually is and then we'll start making car and driver analogies.) But here's the thing I can't get past. When people have good reason to believe that large groups of people are unarmed, there's quite certainly a much higher chance that such locations will be exploited by criminals...usually criminals with guns. That makes anti-gun law and policy FAR more dangerous than gun ownership... far more dangerous to the very [civilian/pedestrian] people who think they want anti-gun legislation and policy.

When I think "V" I think victory. Seems most people are more comfortable with "V" for victimhood.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[RevSpaminator]

ALL our rights should be viewed as human rights and not just a legal technicality. (Yes, even the rights of the accused)

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Jane Q. Public]

"I see gun ownership as a natural right, not a legal one."

It *IS* a so-called "natural right", and not a legal one.

The Constitution does not "grant" rights. It acknowledges the pre-existence of rights due every human being, which the government may not infringe. There is a very big difference.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[sjames]

So the anecdotes are immune to search, don't show up on the news (even though the news loves them some gun violence stories), but is nevertheless true because unspecified cops get the general impression that it's true?

Lovecraft had it right

[kruach aum]

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

It has happened before

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The NRA and ACLU were joint petitioners to the Clinton Administration trying to restrain a patter of abuses by Federal law enforcement. (Clinton ignored them).

Re:It has happened before

[sycodon]

One very disturbing trend is the use of heavily armed SWAT teams to carry out actions related to civil and not criminal investigations.

Just the other day the EPA sent a SWAT team to check on the water quality at several small gold mining operations in Alaska.

Of course, Ruby Ridge and Waco will always be examples of out of control Feds.

Re:It has happened before

[interkin3tic]

More recently:

In 2006, the ACLU of Washington State joined with a pro-gun rights organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, and prevailed in a lawsuit against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access pro-gun web sites were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks...

In light of the Supreme Court's Heller decision recognizing that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, ACLU of Nevada took a position of supporting "the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations" and pledged to "defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights".[298] Since 2008, the ACLU has increasingly assisted gun owners recover firearms that have been seized illegally by law enforcement.

wiki Even more relevant and recently, they opposed creating a national database of background checks this year, evidently because of medical information.

Re:Between the two organizations

[x0]

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

Obviously, no one sells books...

Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[StuartHankins]

If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[CanHasDIY]

If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.

Any way you can say the same thing without coming off as a biased asshole?

Maybe you should try attending a meeting sometime. you know, actually meet some of your neighbors, whom you readily write off as "nuts," and get to know them?

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[CanHasDIY]

Have you never heard of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent?

Yes. Point? Both are American citizens with the right to express their opinions, just like you, regardless of what other people think. Maybe you're just jealous that the Nuge is successful enough to be able to say whatever he wants without major repercussion.

Have you never heard of the NRA's position on guns in schools ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/02/nra-school-security-hutchinson/2045565/ [usatoday.com] )

Yes, and personally I find the concept a much better idea than the government's "run and hide" strategy that turns kids and teachers into easy prey. Taking into account the fact that this statement from the NRA is a direct response to anti-gun nutters like you who screamed bloody murder when it was suggested to station armed police officers in schools, what's so nutty about training school faculty and staff to defend themselves and their charges? What alternative strategy would you recommend?

their recommendations on building indoor gun ranges for children? ( http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/08/1978921/nra-youth-magazine-home-shooting-ranges/

Well, for starters, I don't think a thinkprogress.org article that references other thinkprogress.org articles as supporting material is going to be all that accurate and unbiased when reporting a story about an organization they've deemed "the enemy."

Then there's the fact that, if you actually read it, the article is referring to indoor shooting ranges for bb guns, not combustion rifles. That you did not mention this very important aspect makes me wonder - did you not read the article you cited, or are you still being a biased asshole?

I'll leave the determination up to the reader.

Re:This just in:

[Derec01]

They could be after guns eventually. The NRA isn't stating the entire purpose of the data storage is to create a gun registry. They just believe that among the myriad possible abuses of such data are ones that conflict with their mission statement. I can't see faulting them for this; advocacy organizations can usually only spend money on issues related to their cause.

Re:This just in:

[Derekloffin]

Well, I'm not so sure. Although it is wholly illogical, there is a common issue of human perception that having X associated with Y when you view X negatively, makes Y seem negative as well. I must admit, that the NRA's case is so... sloppy, it kinda makes me feel like the whole issue is likewise overblown, even though it isn't.

Re:This just in:

[gangien]

they aren't after your stupid guns

I guess you weren't paying attention this last year.

Obama I believe just signed an executive order which, affects exported/imported firearms. You are being naive, they are constantly after all of our rights, including our 2nd amendment.

PS "they" isn't any specific group or person. It is our government and society at large.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Narcocide]

The problem you're not foreseeing is what happens when they run out of actual criminals to hunt down and have created a giant, profitable industry on spying. That database that can be used to track down every single person who is a $whatever turns into a motive with a universal applicator. Who could possibly protect that much power from misuse? Its already been demonstrated that they can not.

Re:Between the two organizations

[hsmith]

Liberalism, where in plain english you can't decipher the 2nd amendment - but you can find a right to abortion and free healthcare in the constitution. Brilliant!

Compton and Long Beach together

[belgo]

... now you know you in trouble. Seriously though, how do you even get these two to talk to each other, let alone be co-plaintiffs?

Re:This just in:

[msauve]

"they aren't after your stupid guns."

Depends on who you mean by "they."

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

- Sen. Diane Feinstein, February 5, 1995

Confiscation could be an option...mandatory sale to the state could be an option

- NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, December 20, 2012

Re:This just in:

[msauve]

Are you implying those quotes are somehow not about guns? If so, you're an idiot.

Re:Between the two organizations

[CanHasDIY]

How many members does the ACLU have, and what are the dues?

Per the ACLU website - membership is somewhere around 500,000, and there are no dues, only memberships.

FWIW.

Wow, that's screwed up

[holophrastic]

I must say, I really do find your checks and balances system of government hilarious. So you can't stop a government-funded association from spying on you directly -- even in a democracy -- but you can stop them from accidentally discovering one particular piece of data that someone once said shouldn't be collected.

Interesting. Screwed up, but interesting.

Re:Between the two organizations

[brainboyz]

You're misinterpreting their stance. Their stance is that the way Section 215 is being read to allow government agencies to demand "business records" (aka the phone routing records) would also feasibly allow them to go to gun stores and demand the transaction log that all gun stores are required to keep. Thus, while they wouldn't be directly tracking guns it would allow them to rebuild a list of who has what firearms and doing so is specifically against another part of the law.

Halfway misleading article and summary

[Jiro]

The summary's accurately summarizing a halfway misleading article here.

According to the first half, the NRA thinks that the NSA's database is equivalent to a national gun registry.

According to the second half, the NRA thinks that the NSA's argument for its database would justify creating a national gun registry, not that the NSA is creating one.

If you read the actual court brief, it's a lot closer to the second than to the first.

Re:This just in:

[No Tears In The End]

Yeah, you sure can edit those to hide the context of those to pretend it's about all guns. Nice use of the ellipsis there, and with no link back to an original source.

A+ for effort!

How about video?

She said it.

SHE is after our guns. SHE admitted. WE know it. YOU are either lying or ignorant.

And Here's a source for Cuomo's statement.

Yes. He was looking at confiscation or forced sale, which is just compensated confiscation.

NTITE