Amazing that the ACLU calls the right to bear arms a "collective right," while fighting for individual rights named in the rest of the Bills of Rights. Anyway, I ran across this post elsewhere... namely here. Here's the first bit of it (the whole thing is pretty well written): ---------------------- The American Civil Liberties Union is, by far, the leading civil rights organization in this country. For decades, it has championed the cause of the American citizen against the ever-encroaching power of the government. Over the years, the ACLU has worked to defend American's rights under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Indeed, the ACLU has successfully worked to free convicted murderers due to minor technical irregularities during their arrests, and it championed the cause of avowed racists and anti-Semites to march in public. Surprisingly, the ACLU has entirely failed to concern itself with arguably one of the most important rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights; namely, the individual's right to keep and bear arms, recognized in the Second Amendment. What can explain this anomaly? The ACLU explains this contradiction simply by relying upon U.S. v. Miller, an ambiguous case issued by the Supreme Court in 1939. The ACLU states its position on the Second Amendment is "well known and not subject to change." The ACLU believes the right to bear arms is little more than an anachronism intended to protect the right of the states to maintain militias and thereby insure the states' "freedom" and security against the central government. On a superficial level, this argument seems to make sense. After all, the Amendment clearly refers to the necessity of a "well regulated Militia." But after further consideration, which is obviously necessary any time American citizen's rights are on the block, it quickly becomes clear the ACLU's position is fraught with inaccuracies and illogical conclusions. To see the fallacy of the ACLU's position, four issues must be addressed. First, what does the language of the Second Amendment mean? Second, can a state even have a "right," or is a right something which resides only in individuals. Third, what are the implications of the first clause which refers to the "necessity" of a well regulated militia? Finally, what authority does Congress or the Supreme Court have to repeal or annul any of the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment?