The Big Lie The ACLU Told Must Not Go Unanswered

Take Action Time to Act
Take Action Time to Act

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- By now, Second Amendment supporters are probably aware of what the ACLU put out regarding the origins of the constitutional provision that protects our right to keep and bear arms. This isn’t a mere whopper, it’s a Triple Whopper with Bacon and Cheese – with appropriate apologies to that delicious fast-food burger for being associated with a blood libel.

The Founders of this country had a lot to say about the Second Amendment and why they included it. The history of both the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment discussed in a pair of landmark Supreme Court cases also has a lot to say about the ACLU’s version of history. In fact, Clayton Cramer makes a compelling case that it is the effort to deny Americans of the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights that is founded in racism.

Suffice it to say that the ACLU’s lie is easily refuted. But let’s think about what the ACLU was doing with this attack. They wanted to smear those who are defending the Second Amendment as defending the evils of slavery and racism. In essence, there was nothing about history in their post. It was about sticking a social stigma on those who defend the Second Amendment.

Why the social stigma?

Because these days, corporate America is buying a lot of nonsense, and when you consider that corporate America, notably Silicon Valley, are actively making moves against the Second Amendment and its defenders, and have for a while.

There is just one big problem: They need to find something to justify continued censorship. Jen Psaki blew up one of the fig leaves a few weeks ago. So, if the government cannot flag so-called “misinformation” for Silicon Valley to censor, those who want to cut off Second Amendment supporters from being able to even make the argument have to find a new pretext. Phony charges of racism will do nicely, especially as a way to dehumanize Second Amendment supporters.

These lies can have serious consequences, and Second Amendment supporters need to hold the ACLU accountable. Second Amendment supporters need to be very vocal in calling out these lies. The ACLU’s decision needs to also have repercussions for them. Only we will not be using the underhanded tactics of the likes of Letitia James and Andrew Cuomo. In this case, we will exercise our First Amendment rights. We will be writing letters to the editor of your local paper is one means to do so. We will contact our federal, local, and state elected officials as well, to point out the ACLU’s despicable smear.

Those who can see the truth about that and who will support our Second Amendment rights will be rewarded with our support. Those that don’t will have to be dealt with at the ballot box as soon as possible, whether they are at the federal, state, or local levels.


About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.Harold Hutchison

Subscribe
Notify of
56 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DDS
DDS
1 month ago

An interesting article on the topic:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/31/opinion/very-racist-history-gun-control/?utm_source=FFF+Daily&utm_campaign=2409c7bcf6-FFF+Daily+08-02-2021&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1139d80dff-2409c7bcf6-318011345

And the money quote is:

“In any case, the real racism associated with the Second Amendment isn’t in the rights of gun ownership that the Bill of Rights cemented into the Constitution’s text. It is in the long and shameful record of those rights being denied.”

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  DDS

Perfect.

RJL
RJL
1 month ago

Eliminate the ACLU, traitors to the American public. They continue to use small, minded tactics, with words such as racism, the small branches from the Tree Of Prejudice.
Anti-Constitutionalists=Anti-Americans=Enemies of The United States of America.
Call these people out for what they are, Nazi’s playing from the Nazi Playbook.

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  RJL

The ACLU are the only ones defending your right to say – well, the crap you’re spewing out right now.

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago

The ACLU has a point.

Virtually every gun control law on the books now was implemented to keep black people from owning guns.

Laws against “Saturday night specials” – took away inexpensive guns that minorities could afford – in the name of ‘safety’ but with the reality that poor people were priced out of owning a gun.

The actual ACLU statement is not JUST that the 2nd Amendment is racist – which is not exactly what was said, but also that the implementation of the 2nd Amendment has been racist.

jim
jim
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Re: “Virtually every gun control law on the books now was implemented to keep black people from owning guns”

Really? In 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2007 and 2018 restrictive federal gun laws were passed. Please explain how “virtually” every one of these laws “keep black people from owning guns”

DDS
DDS
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

You’ve made a very clear case that the estimated 20,000 infringements to that was not supposed to be infringed are racist in intent.

However, racist infringements of what the Second Amendment was supposed to protect do not extend their racist taint to the amendment itself.

APG member
APG member
1 month ago
Reply to  DDS

Agreed!

APG member
APG member
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Using that logic the entire constitution is “racist”. It is certainly flawed to the point it has allowed extreme infringements on my rights…

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  APG member

TL;DR - yes, the Constitution, as written, IS racist.<br> <br> Well, the racism is right there in Article I, Section 2: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Who do you think the “three fifths of all other persons” referred to? I’ll tell you – it was slaves. Now, sure, that… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by twidget1995
jim
jim
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Re: “Who do you think the “three fifths of all other persons” referred to? I’ll tell you – it was slaves”

Yes it was the slaves. And the reason was to prevent the slave states from counting a slave as a whole person which would have given those states a majority in the House of Representatives since their members are apportioned based on the population. So it was anti-racist, not racist as you argue.

APG member
APG member
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

The abolitionist moment was active in america long before the constitution. Before the constitution slaves had no legal value, a step in the right direction. Slavery was not invented in, or unique to america. There is always work to be done but crying about racism in america today is chickenshit. Visit some foreign countries and you can experience active racism. You could construe the bible as racist easy; good luck selling that one.

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Wrong, Comrade. The ACLU is pointless.

jim
jim
1 month ago

Re: “Suffice it to say that the ACLU’s lie is easily refuted” True. At the time the Bill of Rights was written and ratified by the states, the founders clearly stated and documented the purpose of the Second Amendment in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (which is included in the Constitution) where it says “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. There is no mention of… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by jim
twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  jim

At the time the Constitution was ratified, blacks were not even considered people, but chattel property. Slaves would not have been allowed to even handle a shotgun, let alone a musket or handgun. White slave owners would have lost their minds if slaves were allowed to have a gun.

Which means, there was no need to “mention racism” in the text of the Constitution when it was clearly, and commonly, understood that property could not own guns.

jim
jim
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Re: ‘Which means, there was no need to “mention racism” in the text of the Constitution when it was clearly, and commonly, understood that property could not own guns”

“Which means” the ACLU is wrong. By your argument the inclusion of Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was not “anti-blackness” (as the ACLU claims) because blacks couldn’t own guns.

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  jim

So, by your logic, too, you’re wrong – in that inclusion of the 2nd Amendment also did not apply to blacks and so was NOT all inclusive at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights was approved.

jim
jim
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Re: “so was NOT all inclusive at the time the Constitution”

I didn’t say it was “all inclusive”. It applied only to law-abiding citizens.. But the Second Amendment was not written with the intention of preventing blacks from owning firearms because as you pointed out they were property so the their exclusion was unnecessary

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  jim

Which, ummmm, slaves were not. Citizens, that is. So, the 2nd Amendment didn’t, and couldn’t, apply to slaves until AFTER the Civil War freed them. Which means that it, also, wasn’t written to ALLOW them to own weapons. Until they were made citizens, that is. But then, just about immediately after Reconstruction ended, implementation of Jim Crow began and, effectively, criminalized being black, making blacks not “law abiding citizens” and denying them access to guns. Which, sure, on it’s face, the 2nd Amendment, as written is not racist. I’ll agree with you on that. The rest of your logic is… Read more »

jim
jim
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Re: ” The rest of your logic is full of fallacies and falls flat when compared to reality”

How so?

Re: “What you mention applies equally to ALL the amendments – not just the 2nd”

Exactly. So what’s your point?

Montana454Casull
1 month ago

Civil liberties is the last thing the ACLU cares about . They are more interested in money , power and control . Just another alphabet soup agency with zero credibility. The ACLU has made thier socialist agenda perfectly clear and no longer represent freedom or liberties . ACLU = American communist lawyers United.

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago

TL;DR: Your wrong on all counts.

The ACLU has defended conservative free speech rights as well as liberal free speech rightys. The ACLU has defended the same Nazis that now populate the GQP. They have defended the same white supremacists that are now the RQpublican base.

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Nice try, Comrade. Democrat is the racist party.

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Have you noticed that the party defending keeping all the monuments and memorials to traitors the RQpublican party?

Have you noticed that the party working to limit voting is the RQpublican party?

Have you noticed that everyone that would have been a Southern Democrat of the ante-bellum South and Jim Crow eras are now RQpublicans?

Where are all the Republicans of the Jim Crow era? They’re all Democrats now.

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Every day, you racist Dems take a dump on Martin Luther King’s Dream of a society where we’re judged by character instead of skin color.

D is still the racist party: Obsess on skin color, jam us into arbitrary race boxes, oppress based on race.

So no, Comrade, I haven’t noticed your lies: e.g. Gov Haley (R, SC) signed a law to remove confederate flags.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

And ya’ll were upset over that removal, too, IIRC.

So, you don’t full get credit for the removal. Haley was opposed to the removal until AFTER the mass shooting at Emmanuelle Baptist Church why a white supremacist. A RQpublican white supremacist.

It’s not Democrats taking a steaming dump on MLK’s dream.

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Speak for yourself, racist. I’ve no use for confederate flags & don’t believe in race. Commie-Dems obsess & oppress on race.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Sure, Jan. Every monument and memorial to traitors should be relegated to the dustbin of history and removed from public display. What’s racist about that? The interests of democracy are served by greater access to voting – not less. What’s racist about that? Accurately pointing out the text of the Constitution, as written, and people being in denial on what is clearly written in the US Constitution is equally absurd. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to say that a document that clearly classifies slaves as 3/5 of a person is anything BUT racist. What ELSE would you call… Read more »

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Nice handwaving, racist.

Autsin Miller III
Autsin Miller III
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Sir, I respectively disagree with your statement that “The interests of democracy are served by greater access to voting.” By that logic you should let my 7 year old grandson vote. Voting should be taken seriously and considered the privilege it is. What you are implying opens the door to “push” voting where folks with an agenda go to people who have no clue what they are voting for and convince them to fill out the ballot with a “Trust me” this is what is best. It also opens the door for voter fraud when no indentification is required. As… Read more »

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago

By that logic you should let my 7yy-old grandson vote.”

ACLU would do just that if they could.

jim
jim
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Re: “It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to say that a document that clearly classifies slaves as 3/5 of a person is anything BUT racist. What ELSE would you call that ”

It prevented the Southern slave states from having a majority in the House of Representatives since the number of Representatives allocated to a state is based on a state’s population. Frederick Douglass acknowledged that as the purpose of the clause

Last edited 1 month ago by jim
Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  jim

It was an unavoidable compromise at the time for the survival of the USA. Northerners thought slavery was evil & Republicans got back to it later when the USA was safe from invasion. It does NOT make the entire document racist.

The real issue is that D is the RACIST party NOW, and always has been the racist party.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
AJChwick
AJChwick
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Such a moronic statement. Sad, that a brain can waste away so completely.

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  AJChwick

Have you looked in the mirror recently to see a brain completely wasted away?

jim
jim
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Re: “The ACLU has defended conservative free speech rights”

You are correct to use the past tense “has”.

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  jim

HAS as recently as this year. It’s sorta their ongoing thing – to defend the 1st Amendment – even when they disagree with the people they’re defending.

“The First Amendment exists specifically to make sure people can express strong opinions on political issues – or any other matter – without fear of punishment by the government. Today’s decision confirms that our position was correct: Roselle Park had no grounds to issue fines for a political sign and the town’s use of its obscenity ordinance infringed upon fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment. It was an uncomplicated case.  

https://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2021/07/27/court-vacates-charges-roselle-park-resident-wrongly-cited-un

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate/

jim
jim
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

Re: ” to defend the 1st Amendment – even when they disagree with the people they’re defending”

Really? Are they denouncing the cancel culture of bigtech against the 45th President of the US? Are they voicing their opposition or threatening to sue the administrations that don’t allow conservatives to speak on state supported college campuses?

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  jim

No, the commie-lib ACLU is not denouncing cancel culture etc.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
1 month ago

You expect differently of the American Communist Lawyers Union.

Arizona
Arizona
1 month ago

Racism has lost all meaning. Everything is labeled racist now. Why respond to the ACLU? To react gives them power. Just ignore their lies/accusations. Stop reacting to every Bs lie the left throws. Again, that gives them power and lets them direct your actions. Instead be proactive. Make them respond. Make them react. Put them in defense. We don’t need to defend the 2nd as not being racist. Stop falling for the traps of the Left!

APG member
APG member
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: RACISM!!!

DDS
DDS
1 month ago
Reply to  APG member

I have a dream that one day in this nation, a chicken will be able to cross the road without having its motives questioned.

😉

HLB
HLB
1 month ago
Reply to  DDS

Chickens in Choppers…

HLB

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Racism has not lost all meaning. Commie-Dems abusing the term for Orwellian projection doesn’t mean it has no true meaning.

Turn the cannon around & fire it on the true racists: Democrats.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
hippybiker
hippybiker
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

“Racism” was a term that was invented by the Bolsheviks in the early part of the twentieth century in the Soviet Union! Go figure.

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  hippybiker

Not true. The first known to have used or coined the term racism was Richard Henry Pratt in 1902, long before the term “Bolshevik” was coined, and he was no commie. Far from it, he appears to have been a Christian Puritan, such as those who founded the USA. Fought in the Civil War against Democrats to free their slaves, then became a 2nd Lt in the 10th Cav, a regiment of freedmen known as the Buffalo Soldiers, and fought in the Indian wars. Relatively humane and just, cleared many Indians of false charges. Then he ran a prison for… Read more »

Chuck
Chuck
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Should this type of nonsense be ignored, or should a response be provided? It probably doesn’t matter. In today’s world if you don’t respond to an allegation then it’s obviously true and you are guilty. If you do respond with a denial, then that denial itself is proof of your guilt … because they say so. You can’t fix stupid, and you can’t reason with unreasonable people.

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
1 month ago

The ACLU is as bad as the Southern Poverty Law Center or the CDC, they all need to go away, they cause more harm than good.

Knute
Knute
1 month ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

Virtually all the institutions of the western world are rotten to their cores. This is the way empires die. From Pax Britannia, all the way back to Pax Romana, all have died the same death. Destroyed from within by their own corruption. Pax Americana will be no different. 🙁
Biden and his string pullers fiddle, while the world burns…

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  Knute

With a big assist by corrupt false-authority-worshiping “Republicans”.

Jaque
Jaque
1 month ago

The only thng the ACLU cares about is self preservation. They see the attack on the Second Amendment as a new fund raising cash cow. Against my better judgement and beliefs I once called them for help fighting a city ordnance regulating political signs, specifically Trump election signs of which I faced large fines if I did not remove them. From the ACLU I got little more than lip service and advice to remove the signs. In other words they would not help me. The ACLU are little more than Red Diaper Babies who live off of dollars earned by… Read more »

DDS
DDS
1 month ago

THEY ARE NOT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!!! RKBA DOES NOT ORIGINATE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!! RKBA is one of the inalienable rights mentioned by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. So it predates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various Federal, State, and local governments established under them and its existence is therefore independent of them all. So if the Second Amendment were repealed, if the entire United States Government disappeared, RKBA would still exist. So ruled SCOTUS in “US v Cruikshank” in 1876. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank “The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.”… Read more »

DDS
DDS
1 month ago
Reply to  DDS

You might wonder what I’m ranting about as the phrase “Second Amendment Rights” does not even appear in Harold’s post above. At least not in the current version. But Harold’s original version had a completely different first paragraph that he evidently felt like pulling and rewording based on my comment.

twidget1995
twidget1995
1 month ago
Reply to  DDS

Cruikshank is a 1st Amendment case and not even referenced by McDonald.

The text of a law doesn’t need to be spell out the racism to BE racist in implementation.

DDS
DDS
1 month ago
Reply to  twidget1995

What I quoted above is directly from the majority opinion in Cruikshank. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542 Now quoting from the Syllabus of the majority opinion in McDonald “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a Dis-trict of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chi-cago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners… Read more »