I've never seen anything from the ACLU on wealth redistribution.

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it." - ACLU co-founder Roger Baldwin

 

 

"Do steer away from making it look like a socialist enterprise. We want to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions." ACLU co-founder Roger Baldwin (Quoted in William A. Donahue, Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU - New Brunswick, NJ: Transition Publishers, 1944, pp.6-7)

Now you have.

No, I've seen an individual support both the ACLU and wealth redistribution.

The Joyce Foundation is a liberal, charitable foundation that, among other things, funds gun control groups. According to Wikipedia :

 

Since 2003, the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to gun control organizations and for research into gun violence prevention. The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970 between 1996 and 2006, and calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners.

 

Conveniently, the Joyce Foundation has a list of the gun control funding grants here .

 

The Joyce Foundation's Annual Reports list Barack Obama as one of the 12 members of the Board of Directors from 1998 until 2001 .

Obama's gun control makes me shiver. Then again I may just be frustrated and clinging to my guns and religion to make myself feel better.

To ignore the fact that he'd need a super majority to pass it, as well as the fact that Democrats are not down-the-line in favor of gun control, isn't just preposterous- it's laughable.

The super majority required is a self-imposed Senate rule that can be (and should be) eliminated. Besides, even with the current rules gun control laws were signed into law in the past. Gun owners have ever reason to fear additional assaults on the Second Amendment by an Obama administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress.

The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970 between 1996 and 2006, and calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners.

Kind of loads the grant, doesn't it? What was the grant for? Until we know that, you're just trying for guilt by association.

 

EDIT:

 

Also, since the time frame for Obama's time on the board and the time cited for the grant money don't exactly mirror one another, you can't even say how much of the money was given to the Violence Policy Center while Obama was involved. What if the grants were in 1996 and 2006 only? I don't see a lot of detail, here.

Obama's gun control makes me shiver. Then again I may just be frustrated and clinging to my guns and religion to make myself feel better.

:lol: Another of his brilliant quotes.

The super majority required is a self-imposed Senate rule that can be (and should be) eliminated. Besides, even with the current rules gun control laws were signed into law in the past. Gun owners have ever reason to fear additional assaults on the Second Amendment by an Obama administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress.

And in the past, the Democrats got their heads cut off for it. Seeing no reason to repeat 1994, it's just not politically feasible.

Kind of loads the grant, doesn't it? What was the grant for? Until we know that, you're just trying for guilt by association.

I'm not "trying" for anything. You're welcome to entertain your own conclusions.

No, I've seen an individual support both the ACLU and wealth redistribution.

:lol: Of course, the ACLU was co-founded by a communist but he scrupulously kept his own political leanings from infecting the organization that he founded.

And in the past, the Democrats got their heads cut off for it. Seeing no reason to repeat 1994, it's just not politically feasible.

Again, it depends on who next administration packs the Supreme Court with.

Obama's gun control makes me shiver. Then again I may just be frustrated and clinging to my guns and religion to make myself feel better.

:lol: Don't forget to feel bitter if you want to be considered a real small town resident.

And in the past, the Democrats got their heads cut off for it. Seeing no reason to repeat 1994, it's just not politically feasible.

Democrats did not lose control of the House in 1994 because of gun control. They lost control because of the vision and strategy articulated by Newt Gingrich and he is no longer there.

Obama's gun control makes me shiver. Then again I may just be frustrated and clinging to my guns and religion to make myself feel better.

 

:lol: Another of his brilliant quotes.

 

Another reason I don't like him:

 

"Look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

 

Values and morals?

:lol: Of course, the ACLU was co-founded by a communist but he scrupulously kept his own political leanings from infecting the organization that he founded.

Here's some more on Roger Baldwin:

 

He later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny". In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members.

 

So, anything from the ACLU on socialism? I'll hang up and listen. :thumb: