NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) has a constitutional right to publish pamphlets that instruct members on how to break the law and molest young boys.
That 18 year old men have a constitutional right to have sex with 14 year old boys.
While at the same time, law abiding citizens do not have a constitutional right to own a gun
What I do not understand is how the ACLU can read the first amendment to mean that NAMBLA has an unlimited constitutional right to instruct men on how to rape and kill young boys, while at the same time, taking the following position with regards to the Second Amendment:
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
1 Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to own a car? The two are not equivalent.
2 What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
3 I know all about the disingenuous statements regarding the militia clause. Do we really have to discuss this again?
Since the Supreme court is poised to take a case that will decide whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective one, I ask the ACLU this question:
If the Supreme Court rules that the right to bear arms is an individual one, will you then defend the NRA as voraciously as you do NAMBLA, or you rather support those who want to fuck young boys, instead of simply take them hunting?