The ACLU's policy on gun control.  Blue Eagle editorial December 1999 Question: What is the difference between these two statements? 1. "Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles. If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms." -- ACLU website, http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html 2. "Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to all kinds of speech, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on conservative talk-show hosts, speeches against affirmative action, anti-government editorials, or political protests. If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to free speech in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to commit libel, slander, con-artist fraud, defamation, verbal threats, perjury, incitement to riot, and even reciting pornography to children, for they, like newspaper editorials, are speech." What's the difference? Answer: only ACLU members and other neo-leftists think that only one of the above statements is ludicrous, and that the other makes perfect sense. "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" -- Joseph Stalin Click here for an index of other Blue Eagle editorials. 
|