After Charlottesville, ACLU will no longer defend hate groups that protest with firearms - Polidicks

[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-aclu-revises-policy-to-avoid-supporting-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms[/url] [quote]The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took a new stance on firearms Thursday, announcing a change in policy that it would not represent hate groups who demonstrate with firearms. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero told the Wall Street Journal that the group would have stricter screenings and take legal requests from white supremacist groups on a case-by-case basis. “The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,” Romero told the Journal. “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else." The ACLU has come under fire after it filed a lawsuit in defense of the organizers planning the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville after city officials denied them a permit to hold the rally around a statue of Robert E. Lee set to be removed. [/quote]

should just leave it as, don't protest with firearms

While I don't think you should ever protest with firearms, relating this decision to the Charlottesville attack is absurd. We all know it was a ramming attack with a vehicle, why bring gun politics into this at all?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52586723]While I don't think you should ever protest with firearms, relating this decision to the Charlottesville attack is absurd. We all know it was a ramming attack with a vehicle, why bring gun politics into this at all?[/QUOTE] The vehicle attack wasn't the only case of violence in that protest; I don't think any firearms were actually discharged but the armed militia were definitely threatening people, there's even that picture of one of them pointing his handgun at counter protesters. I don't think it's crazy to not support armed protesters. It's not about gun politics, you don't need to bring your guns to protest. Maybe make it a rule about open carry since then you can still carry for defence without waving it in people's faces to escalate violence.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52586723]While I don't think you should ever protest with firearms, relating this decision to the Charlottesville attack is absurd. We all know it was a ramming attack with a vehicle, why bring gun politics into this at all?[/QUOTE] There was a lot more violence that went down in Cville than just the car attack. The police refused to take action to shut down the protests after they became violent, because they were completely outgunned. That should not have happened - you shouldn't be able to literally cow the police into letting you run rampant in the streets, just by carrying more guns than they do. The ACLU protects free speech. They do not protect ways to literally silence the law.

Honestly if you're protesting with a firearm you're looking for trouble or you think you need to protect yourself at said protest and that means its no longer a protest and you shouldn't be there in the first place. [QUOTE=gman003-main;52586828]There was a lot more violence that went down in Cville than just the car attack. The police refused to take action to shut down the protests after they became violent, because they were completely outgunned. That should not have happened - you shouldn't be able to literally cow the police into letting you run rampant in the streets, just by carrying more guns than they do. The ACLU protects free speech. They do not protect ways to literally silence the law.[/QUOTE] As soon as the Nazis showed up armed the national guard should have been deployed but this isn't related to the topic just something I wanted to say.

If people are turning up in combat gear with guns, riot shields, helmets, etc it's not a peaceful protest imo.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;52586828]There was a lot more violence that went down in Cville than just the car attack. The police refused to take action to shut down the protests after they became violent, because they were completely outgunned. That should not have happened - [b]you shouldn't be able to literally cow the police into letting you run rampant in the streets[/b], just by carrying more guns than they do. The ACLU protects free speech. They do not protect ways to literally silence the law.[/QUOTE] isn't this literally the point of the second amendment, so that the people can outgun the government if necessary?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52586847]isn't this literally the point of the second amendment, so that the people can outgun the government if necessary?[/QUOTE] I think there is a difference between protecting your self from the government and trying to make sure cops can't do their jobs to keep the peace in a violent protest.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52586847]isn't this literally the point of the second amendment, so that the people can outgun the government if necessary?[/QUOTE] No.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52586847]isn't this literally the point of the second amendment, so that the people can outgun the government if necessary?[/QUOTE] Except these guys are caring guns to shoot black people and other minorities...

[QUOTE=duckmaster;52586842] As soon as the Nazis showed up armed the national guard should have been deployed but this isn't related to the topic just something I wanted to say.[/QUOTE] Yeah it makes no sense as to why the police didn't increase their head count, or bring in SWAT, or riot gear, or call the national guard in. There really is no excuse for them to just have given up because they were outnumbered and out gunned.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52586847]isn't this literally the point of the second amendment, so that the people can outgun the government if necessary?[/QUOTE] Only if you treat the "well-ordered militia" clause as meaningless fluff. Some 2A enthusiasts do, but they're wrong.

[QUOTE=Splash Attack;52586962]No.[/QUOTE] Yes. Everyone twists and turns the second amendment and in the end makes it completely useless. It is there to keep the people as armed as the government in case of tyranny.

[QUOTE=Hilton;52588351]Yes. Everyone twists and turns the second amendment and in the end makes it completely useless. [B]It is there to keep the people as armed as the government in case of tyranny[/B].[/QUOTE] Well, it's already fully and totally failed. Unless your militia happens to have a fleet of F-35s in their backyard. Beyond that, do you see any particular tyranny in the police forcing armed Nazi insurgents to disband after acts of terroristic violence (and threats of more to come)?

[QUOTE=Hilton;52588351]Yes. Everyone twists and turns the second amendment and in the end makes it completely useless. It is there to keep the people as armed as the government in case of tyranny.[/QUOTE] The US government serves the interest of corporations and the wealthy and hasn't properly represented the common man for a solid 30 years. It's already tyrannical economically. 2nd amendment people, where the fuck are you?

Wasnt this the institution that the alt-right was decrying because they were urging Trump to release Guantanamo Bay prisoners or some shit like that? Looks like they gave those idiots a fair shake and they fucked it up like everyone expected.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52588401]Well, it's already fully and totally failed. Unless your militia happens to have a fleet of F-35s in their backyard. Beyond that, do you see any particular tyranny in the police forcing armed Nazi insurgents to disband after acts of terroristic violence (and threats of more to come)?[/QUOTE] I agree it's completely failed, and I'm not supporting the violent scare tactics or anything the neo Nazis have done for that matter. But to pretend and mislabel the second amendment as fulfilling a purpose other than to combat tyranny takes away from the fact that the government has unconstitutionally twisted it around to allow room for tyranny and make it impossible to revolt if it ever came to that, which was the entire point of it in the first place. [editline]18th August 2017[/editline] I promise I'm not trying to sympathize with the demonstrators in any way, everything they stand for and did is atrocious.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;52588294]Only if you treat the "well-ordered militia" clause as meaningless fluff. Some 2A enthusiasts do, but they're wrong.[/QUOTE] [I]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of free state[/I],[B] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [/B] Two separate entities, and Heller vs. DC, as well as the finding of United States v. Miller say the same. :v:

"Well regulated" in the 18th century lexicon meant [URL="http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm"]well equipped to properly function[/URL].

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52589234][I]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of free state[/I],[B] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [/B] Two separate entities, and Heller vs. DC, as well as the finding of United States v. Miller say the same. :v:[/QUOTE] Sounds more like the militia is for security purposes against invaders, such as the former colonial masters that the founders had to fear. It says nothing about individual people protecting their rights from the government using weapons. The founders didn't regard the common man as having that level of sovereignty, though some surely thought the states should.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52586847]isn't this literally the point of the second amendment, so that the people can outgun the government if necessary?[/QUOTE] I was told in school that the idea was this: It's a lot harder to take a town by force if they have their own mini-army. Let the men of the country arm themselves and when an un-predicted enemy force arrives and they can defend themselves instead of waiting on the actual army to catch wind of it and come to their aid. And when the army arrives they arrive to a fight not a slaughtered/captured town. Pretty much all of our gun policies revolve around "well there's too many people with guns NOT to do it like this" For the record, I'm simply pointing out what I was told as a kid.

[QUOTE=cis.joshb;52589718]Sounds more like the militia is for security purposes against invaders, such as the former colonial masters that the founders had to fear. It says nothing about individual people protecting their rights from the government using weapons. The founders didn't regard the common man as having that level of sovereignty, though some surely thought the states should.[/QUOTE] If the constitution is not clear, always go back to the Federalists Papers for explanations. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46#Military_and_militia[/url]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52590367]If the constitution is not clear, always go back to the Federalists Papers for explanations. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46#Military_and_militia[/url][/QUOTE] Well, we've already thrown the "limited standing army" out the window.

I feel it's probably worth it to share the development progress of the 2nd amendment. It went from this: [quote]The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[/quote] To this: [quote]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.[/quote]

It's honestly disgusting how much freedom has been lost to the oppression of the government because they didn't follow the words of the founding fuckin' fathers.

[QUOTE=Hilton;52591042]It's honestly disgusting how much freedom has been lost to the oppression of the government because they didn't follow the words of the founding fuckin' fathers.[/QUOTE] Excuse me, I'm sorry I don't think people should threaten their ideals on me. [editline]19th August 2017[/editline] ACLU isn't even a government organization lmao.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52588401]Well, it's already fully and totally failed. Unless your militia happens to have a fleet of F-35s in their backyard. Beyond that, do you see any particular tyranny in the police forcing armed Nazi insurgents to disband after acts of terroristic violence (and threats of more to come)?[/QUOTE] Arming yourself doesn't necessarily have to be so you can win a war/fight, it can also be to dissuade someone from doing something. Take the Baltic states bringing back conscription as an example, they don't seriously think they can win a war against Russia (on their own,) but what they can do is make invading them not worth it.

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52586892]I think there is a difference between protecting your self from the government and trying to make sure cops can't do their jobs to keep the peace in a violent protest.[/QUOTE] whether you like it or not, this is what the second amendment does. it lets everyone arm themselves against the government if they feel threatened by it, regardless of their political affiliations or moral compass.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;52591105]Excuse me, I'm sorry I don't think people should threaten their ideals on me. [editline]19th August 2017[/editline] ACLU isn't even a government organization lmao.[/QUOTE] I'm not referring to the nazi's nor ACLU, just how the second amendment has changed.