Ammo For Sale

« « Dump and Run | Home | Tilting at windmills » »

More on the ACLU and Heller

Over 700 comments. I don’t know that any I read (I only skimmed as last I checked there were only 100) took the ACLU’s side.

6 Responses to “More on the ACLU and Heller”

  1. Gregory Morris Says:

    My last count there were 3 pro-ACLU comments. I stopped reading after about 300 comments though. I’d also estimate about 96-97% of the comments are high-quality, with only a handful containing name-calling and profanity.

    Its kinda like the Brady blog of days gone by, only without the insufferable trolls.

  2. Nomen Nescio Says:

    i’ve actually read through most of the (when i stopped) 703 comments, and i think 3 or 4 of them were in defense of the ACLU. and of those, IIRC, at least two were mostly just indignant at having the ACLU called a bunch of godless baby-murdering america-hating commie faggots — of which invective there was a fair share, starting a bit past comment #200 and getting worse as the numbers counted up.

    the pro-gun side wasn’t showing its very best colors in that thread, although there was also a lot of very principled, excellently reasoned disagreement with the ACLU, and some eloquently stated disappointment with their position from people who managed to express deeply felt sentiment both respectfully and scathingly.

  3. Ted Says:

    I counted 6 (out of 662). http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2008/07/662-to-6.html

    Lots of trolls towards the end, but the early comments seem pretty straight. Also, it looks like this is a spillover from an earlier thread. Don’t think that the ACLU is doing themselves much good with the grass roots. May play well with the big donors, though.

  4. Nomen Nescio Says:

    they originally tried to get away without doing a blog post on Heller at all, but folks started bringing it up on other threads on their blog anyway, so they had to open that one.

    yeah, i think their grassroots are feeling somewhat poisoned at this point. crying shame, in a way, if only because of the lost opportunity. they’ve been wrong about this for so long, if they’d changed their mind now and eaten a bit of crow, they could’ve done their own image and PR a heap of good — stood on the old principles, acted non-partisan, ended up looking politically neutral and truly interested in civil rights above all else. but they went and blew it, and it’s looking like a lot of camels’ backs are breaking because of it.

    i would’ve joined them, myself, if they’d only straightened up and done the right thing. but they didn’t. oh well, didn’t really want to spend the money anyway.

  5. Jack in Vermont Says:

    I think all gun rights people should send money to defend civil rights
    I just sent comment#753 (if it passes their muster)

    Members and contributors to the ACLU, and Iíll bet quite a few ACLU Staffers are appalled by this stance. I suggest donors consider tax exempt contibutions to a Civil Rights Defense fund that helps average hard working people abused by overzealous bureaucrats. Staffers in the D.C. area may consider sending a resume. Here are some recent civil rights cases.
    http://www.nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx

  6. Jack in Vermont Says:

    They posted as #775 They must have been at lunch.