I think the fine line is the violence part. But how you keep the talking about discriminating against some folks from inciting some people into violence is a guessing game. I think ACLU is trying to make sure that if the talk motivates some folks to lose control they don’t have objects of violence handy. The tools could include not only guns, but also knives, and an assortment of common objects that could be used to physically hurt someone else more easily. Shoes for example.
1 Like
The Second Amendment has been improperly redefined by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Unless and until the Court delivers a new decision on that interpretation, we have what we have.
I do not favor altering the US Constitution willy-nilly to suit the mood of the moment or the political leanings of any particular group.
7 Likes
4 Likes
I don’t either. Yet, to treat it as an unassailable writ of god is wrong as well. I do applaud the ACLU, as a private group, from not defending hate groups with guns.
We’re in a strange sort of alternate reality that this is even something we’d be confronted with in 2017.
7 Likes
I think their reasoning that weapons are a form of intimidation to the opposing side and thus inhibit free speech is pretty ironclad. Or to my mind it seems so.
@lizzymom as well.
4 Likes
The Second Amendment is, in fact, limited. All members of the Suoreme Court agree with that, no matter their views on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or a right limited to government militias. No one on the Supreme Court believes that individuals have a constitutional right to own a Gatling Gun or a Sherman tank. Since the 1930s, federal law has prohibited the ownership of machine guns. Our problem with weapons is much more a matter of political will than a matter of constitutional inadequacy.
6 Likes
The problem I see with making the line intimidation is that the entire reason these genocide advocates march is to intimidate and threaten non-whites and other minorities they consider inferior.
2 Likes
They’re not basing the decision on intimidation per se. You can still intimidate, yell moron from the sidelines. Both they can and we can. But you can’t intimidate with weapons and have them represent you.
4 Likes
And that is protected speech. Where the ACLU’s position has merit is in the First Amendment’s “right of the people peaceably to assemble”. Carrying of firearms is an expression of non-peaceable intent. Therefore, the First Amendment argument is not about freedom of speech, which the ACLU will continue to support, but about peaceable assembly since carrying a firearm is not speech.
4 Likes
Correct. That is basically what has happened in European countries that have banned the swastika, they merely replaced it with the Confederate flag instead.
3 Likes
What if your message is, “the Constitution gives me the right to carry this firearm, as do the statutes of this State, so I’m open-carrying to make my opinion known - I believe this is a right worth defending.”
Not saying I agree with that, but that’s the argument that it’s “speech.”
This is good. We should commit to protecting the rights to assemble and petition by eliminating armed groups from protests, and that also means antifa groups which seem to long more for an armed brawl with fascists than promoting liberal democracy/civil rights/etc.
We also need to put pressure on police departments not to stand back as Charlottesville law enforcement did. If police won’t impose order and punish the gun-wielding loons, citizens have lost the ability to protest.
2 Likes
This is a good decision by the ACLU. But to be fair, I don’t really blame them for what happened anyway. They were doing what they do. I blame the Court for siding with them. This was a huge safety concern waiting to happen that anyone with half a brain cell should have been able to predict. I’m not sure if moving it would have prevented the violence, but it certainly wouldn’t have made it worse.
1 Like
That, I think, is an argument that could be made if it were at a rally specifically anti gun control. But even there it would be iffy. Arguable, but iffy.
1 Like
Why do I think that after the Nazis come to power they’re not going to thank the ACLU for its support with gracious observance of free speech rights.
3 Likes
I’m just playing devil’s advocate, of course. Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. In fact, I think it was already an anachronism by the time it was enacted. It should be repealed, lock, stock, and barrel (see what I did there?).
But are you saying that free speech can address only one subject at a time? Can I not march in favor of helping the poor downtrodden white people, and in favor of guns for everyone at the same time?
1 Like
No, I’m saying guns could only be a symbol of protest and therefore defineable as speech in a protest connected to guns and gun laws.
Maybe you think that because of this: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/politics/dreamhost-department-of-justice-trump-opponents/index.html
1 Like
So I’m covered if I carry a sign that says, “Guns for White People!” 
2 Likes
The Second Amendment has been improperly redefined by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court
I think the driving factor is first and foremost the gun manufacturing industry and second people that have a strange attraction to the thought of killing if not killing itself.
2 Likes