ACLU Will No Longer Defend Hate Groups Protesting With Firearms

If it is legal to carry a weapon and they meet the legal requirements (not felons etc.) then I am not sure what the concern is. Many of our previous generations showed up to meetings/rallies with weapons. What about a knife or a club? If there was a rash of protestors using them there might at least be an argument. There is a better argument about not supporting them if they drove to the rally as a car seems to be the weapon of choice these days.

This is simply a weasely way for the ACLU to stop protecting the rights of people they do not share opinions with or like etc. The more we allow the Nazi's/Klan to talk and assemble the smaller their ranks get. They have nothing to offer anyone.

I wonder of they will defend antifa with the sticks, clubs, chains, knifes, urine bottles etc.

So let me get this straight. An organization that is supposed to defend anyone legally being prevented from using their rights. And possession and carrying of firearms in many states are legal and a right, and now they will not defend the group if they exercise that right. Hmm Sounds like they are not as unbiased as they claim to be. A right is a right, the second is right after the first and before the third, it is no more or less than the others. Sounds like they are making a statement on one of our rights and saying they do not support it.

Like many things, sounds like loosely defined words again to target specific groups and not others. This declaration is to support HATE groups, loosely defined and easily justified, in order to represent one group over another. This vague-ness to set up spin. And further to use the language, "guns", specifically sounds again in my opinion to be a positioning to target specific citizens over another. Since its known that the HATE groups were armed with other so called weapons, homemade, to provoke and harm chosen groups. If it's legal to be armed with a gun, that is targeting to deny legal rights. I believe a group wanting to operate with integrity, they would be clear not to support armed hate groups that commit premeditative crimes. Hmmmm... that seems much more clear. Not again a misguided statement to spin and set up one group against the other. I too agree there needs to be responsibility and repercussions for fake, targeted news with the goal to harm people or groups through reporting. That is a fine line, but we crossed it so long ago no one can look back and find that line. We need integrity back in reporting, protections and politics/government. Law and crimes needs to be the focuse while ensuring true rights. Free responsible soeech I will defend to my dying day. Harming other because they can, has become more than criminal. Thank you for the post.