Arts and Entertainment Network Investigative Reports on Gun Rights

T

TX_RGR

New member
Anyone catch this one? I'm sure it's a re-run, but I thought I'd ask. It focused a lot on the NRA and its political struggles. I think Bill Curtis tries to be even-handed when discussing controversial issues, but I also beleive his true feelings did bleed through the piece a little. For example, they discussed the NRAs preoccupation with the ATF, and they mentioned Ruby Ridge, but not the fact that the federal sniper (I believe with the Marshals?) capped Weaver's dog, son and wife without being in any personal danger. They also had some inflammatory footage of little kids playing with a huge chrome revolver--looked like a 44--and looking down the barrel, sticking it in their mouths, etc. In addition, their footage seemed to center around gunshows, and racks of "evil" "assault weapons" with scary features, etc.

This is probably not new to anyone here, but wouldn't it be nice to have a political organization we could get behind that concentrates on the preservation (or restoration) of the Constitution? Such a group would have more support, I believe, since it would be working towards protecting the rights of all citizens with a strict interpretation of the original document. Am I just dreaming?
 
T

TimRB

New member
You will never see even-handed coverage of firearms issues on any of the major networks. It does not fit their political agenda, and so they simply will not allow it to be aired. That's why you never see any NRA commercials on national TV. The networks refuse to run them.

I don't think Bill Curtis *ever* tries to be anything but sensational. I find everything he is associated with patronizing and insulting. Consider his catchphrase: "...the closest you'll ever get to the truth..." :barf:

Tim
 
R

Rob P.

Moderator
I believe that the org you're looking for is the ACLU. Nevermind the fact that some don't like it because it's gone "liberal" the truth is that the ACLU was created to defend the Constitution from encroachment by gov't. It may have moved away from that centerpoint but it's the only org out there with that charter.
 
B

boofus

Moderator
The ACLU was never intended to defend the constitution. It was formed to defend communists using choice portions of the constitution and to undermine the other parts their socialist/communist agenda doesn't agree with.

That's why when they quote the 1st Amendment on that NPR and Hypocrisy Now garbage, they conveniently leave out the section that says government shall not prohibit free exercise of religion. They also don't treat the 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights.
 
T

TX_RGR

New member
Well, if the ACLU are the Constitutionalists, I wonder how they feel about Bush's plan for militia rule during an actual or perceived "time of crisis?"
 
D

Denny Hansen

Staff Emeritus
federal sniper (I believe with the Marshals?) capped Weaver's dog, son and wife without being in any personal danger
Click to expand...

U.S. Marshal shot the dog. Weaver's son opened fire on the Marshal's after his dog was killed and subsequently shot. FBI agent Lon Horiuchi pulled the trigger on Vicki Weaver.

Denny
 
G

gfen

New member
Oddly enough, the first thing to come up via my dial up link on the ACLU.org website was a box containing:

"The ACLU defends Americans' constitutional right to exercise religious beliefs or no religion at all, free from government promotion of faith-based doctrine or activities."

Let's see what we can find about martial law...
 
R

Rob P.

Moderator
The problem the ACLU has is that it's been getting bad press.

There have been too many "cases" where the ACLU got involved that seemed to be based on wacko theories. At least that's what the media would like us to think. And, of course, we all know that the media tells us the straight skinny. :rolleyes: Right?

In truth, even if you don't agree with all their ideas, the ACLU at least is on the front line defending against erosion of our rights. They may not get it right all the time, but they're in there doing their best for all of us. That's their charter.

Those who sneer at them should do a little independent research. Who knows, maybe a suprise awaits.....
 
B

boofus

Moderator
Yeah and I'll bet you believed John Kerry was a firm supporter of 2nd Amendment rights because he said so on his website and showed up in hunter orange too. :rolleyes:
 
R

Rob P.

Moderator
Boofus, was that comment aimed at me? Otherwise I can't see how it relates to the topic.

I'm wondering what my personal beliefs on some other issue have to do with anything relating to THIS issue. :confused:

Please, ANYONE who hasn't done so, go the ACLU website and read their charter. Do some independent research on their origins and what they were originally created for. Please don't read the obvious propaganda put out by the press or any political party or party member.

Would that be too difficult? I hope not. And if ANYONE does that, would they post their results and links? Might be interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling with this link:
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html
 
R

Rob P.

Moderator
How sad to discover that those who frequent this forum would rather spout misinformation and bias than learn the truth for themselves. Two days and not one single reply or link.

I thought we were supposed to be enlightened. :(
 
S

Sulaco2

New member
Founder of the ACLU was a card carrying communist and never turned it in. Do the research. I have delt with the ACLU alot and never would I let them near me or mine, their plan for the US and us is nothing short of a Stalinist state now. May have been different in the past but now it’s just a socialist pressure group...:barf:

Indeed go and read their charter then compare it with what they do, not what they say. Go to their section on the 2nd and see how it squares with 2005 and what we mostly believe in. Go to the HQ in WA DC and note that the 2nd Amendment is missing from the copy amendments on the front of the building. I think you are confusing what you desperately want the ACLU to be and what it is now.

Too bad it could have been a nobel organization.
 
R

Rob P.

Moderator
No, Baldwin was NOT a communist. He was a Unitarian and a socialist but not a communist. The communist label is untrue agenda-driven bias. In other words, it's a bald faced LIE.

Here's a quote from a blog site that I came across. It's just one site of the many many many sites I looked at on this particular issue. The blog has links to other sites to support their position.

"I'm wondering if this description of the "position of the founding director of the ACLU" is entirely accurate. I don't see any citations from Prof. Volokh who is usually pretty good about sourcing his assertions. Baldwin was undoubtedly a socialist, but I haven't seen good evidence he was a communist.

I've seen one quote floating around the web which Baldwin purportedly wrote in some kind of Harvard class reunion book in 1935 including the line "communism is the goal," though even the site with the longest version of that quote that I've found contains multiple ellipses, other factual inaccuracies, and is literally written by a guy who also wrote "Why I'm a Right-Wing Extremist"
Click to expand...

http://volokh.com/posts/1126047007.shtml#17986

Also, in 1940, the ACLU purged their ranks. They removed those persons who were avowed communists from the board of directors AND, to date, they still no longer allow communists to be members of the ACLU. That alone sort of says that they ain't communists.

Here's a link to some tidbits to chew on. It's a link to the ACLU's "about us" page. http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm

There's a couple links at the bottom of the page. Check them out.

I don't see the ACLU getting involved in the gun rights issues because the NRA and other orgs already fill that niche. That doesn't mean that they couldn't, just that they don't need to spend their resources to fight a battle that is being fought by other orgs.

What I DO see is an org that is fighting to keep our freedoms from being overrun by those who would put their own individual values onto everyone else regardless of whether the rest of us desire that or not. Interestingly enough, most of their opposition is by faith-based conservative christian groups. Most of the lies are being spread by these same groups.

"They're communists". "They're anti-Christian". "They're pro Catholic" (I never did understand that one). And on and on and on.

I'm not knocking anyone who is against the ACLU and/or what they stand for as being anti-American. However, I believe that they're getting a bad rap by those orgs that have their own agenda to propogate.
 
G

gfen

New member
If you check the ACLU website, you will see they do state their position on the 2nd, and they declare it a States' rights issue, and believe that reasonable control is acceptable.

I do differ on this opinion with them, for what it matters to this conversation (mostly to keep anyone from going rabid on me).
 
S

Sulaco2

New member
"Socialist Party member and ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was a devoted follower of anarchist Emma Goldman, who advocated “propaganda of the deed,” or what today is called terrorist bombing. Baldwin wrote in a 1917 letter to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota about how to conceal their real intentions: “Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise . . . We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”
Landsbaum LA Times in a recent series of articles about the ACLU and it intent and policy.

States rights is the cover for their stand (or lack of on the 2nd) They define it as a right of the State only and not an individual rights as outlined by the founders so that individual ownership and control of arms can and in their minds will be outlawed to make the socalist order safe from the peasents.

Its there to be seen if you have the guts and not an agenda...

And if you think they purged their ranks for real you have not look at their current membership, or what they are doing to us.
 
R

Rob P.

Moderator
"Socialist Party member and ACLU founder Roger Baldwin.......
Click to expand...

The first word there.... It sort of makes my point he wasn't a communist but was a socialist.

I think this is a good topic. Hopefully we can get others involved and keep it mellow and running. Who knows, we might all learn something. I certainly have already.
 
S

Sulaco2

New member
"It sort of makes my point..."
Not really, if he was party member is in dispute but not by those that clam to know. The diff between Soc and Com is not much in the way of degrees. Both are enemies of the type of free government in the US and around the world. Except of course in the UN.

"Founded by Roger Baldwin, 1920
Several crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party. Earl Browder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party."
Front Page Magazine 10/8/03


Whats your point? Not sure what this has to do with guns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top