I think his tongue was firmly planted in cheek with those terms of service. He actually made some joke about them when they went up.

Yup. It never ceases to amaze me how over the top an obvious joke can be, and someone will still fall into the great sarchasm. I’ve even gotten serious responses to this.

That’s okay. The NRA & GOA are pretty soft on my non-boomstick rights. Call it a wash.

As Countertop has already pointed out, it was the NRA, not the so-called ACLU, that was the lead plaintiff on the most important First Amendment issue in decades. More importantly, the NRA, while focusing its efforts primarily on one part of the Bill of Rights, does not campaign against any of them. It also wasn’t founded by Marxists, doesn’t sue to prevent states from holding elections likely to hurt Democrats, and doesn’t work tirelessly to ensure that the very people you need a gun to defend yourself against remain free on the streets. I think the only reason anyone other than far-leftists respect the ACLU is because it is called the ACLU. Opposing any organization with a name like that is like opposing Mom and apple pie.

Now, that runs counter to what I’d heard (so I mentioned that), and I don’t see anything to the contrary – but so far, I don’t see the .PDF from the court to see who the plantiffs are.

But I thought it was interesting that in a bunch of action shooters – it doesn’t take much to distrust the NRA, start/continue NRA-bashing gossip.

Say Uncle blog reports this good news:

The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable …

I would be interested in learning the judge’s name and who appointed him or her.

As for the ACLU, it seeks to protect selected liberties, not all of the enumerated ones.

However, the ACLU advances considerably more liberties than the ABA champions. Its pathetic position statements look like a distillation of positions of PFAW or MoveOn.

Readers here seem pretty defensive on Glenn’s part. Have you read his terms of service? Typical laywer crap if you ask me (paraphrased): “If you quote me, you have to give me credit…but you can’t hold me responsible if I’m wrong”.

Lawyers have a gift for making mediocre insight seem unduly wise.

“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
–Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Most times, he has far too much email to respond to everyone, but if he knows you and reads your email, he will usually respond. I suspect its the lunatic, crazy ranting moonbats he doesn’t respond to. And the reason he turned off comments isn’t because people disagree with him (heck, every week he seems to have a post linking to a Andrew Sullivan piece he disagrees with) but rather the trolls and spammers made moderation too difficult.

That’s why he turns comments off. He couldn’t be bothered.

I’d counter that they are at the forefront of protecting your non boomstick rights as well.

As for the GOA – they are just out to smear the good reputation of the NRA and try to peel some dollars out of suckers who think their agenda has a snowballs chance in hell. Sorry, but I just call it as I see it. They are nothing but pilers on and while no one in DC pays them 5 seconds of attention – when they do pay attention those 5 seconds the end result is usually your rights being further eroded as they are easily marginalized.

Ya gotta place nice to win.

As for the complaints that CNN filed suit immediately and the NRA didn’t – it comes down to a simple issue of standing. CNN is its own entity and was being denied their right. They can sue on their behalf.

No one took a gun from the NRA, so the NRA was not harmed. Once they found a member who did have their rights infringed (hence the call for information) they had standing to sue and were able to march down to the courthouse and file the suit.

That’s okay. The NRA & GOA are pretty soft on my non-boomstick rights. Call it a wash.

Your snarky comment here really decreases it’s power.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

In other words, they’re full of crap on the issue. Gun Owners of America also did not file a lawsuit. Nor did the Citizens Committee for the Right To Keep and Bear Arms. Neither did you, I would guess.

I noticed that the ACLU didn’t file this lawsuit, and did not file an amicus brief.

Wonder why?