NRA Joins ACLU Lawsuit Against NSA 531
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."
So it has come to this (Score:5, Insightful)
When the NRA and ACLU both oppose something, you know it's bad for everyone.
you know hell has frozen over (Score:5, Insightful)
When the NRA, EFF, ACLU and the author of the [un]Patriot Act are all against it.
Re:you know hell has frozen over (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Sic semper tyrannis (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Between the two organizations (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:So it has come to this (Score:5, Insightful)
I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.
Re:you know hell has frozen over (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Between the two organizations (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:you know hell has frozen over (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:you know hell has frozen over (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Kinda batshit of the NRA (Score:5, Insightful)
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:you know hell has frozen over (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So it has come to this (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
ACLU doesn't defend 2nd Amendment cases because their resources are limited and the NRA is there & well-funded for just that purpose. IMO that's eminently sensible.
Re:So it has come to this (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [guncite.com], it means "disciplined" or "well trained."