Why doesn't the American Civil Liberties Union care about the right to bear arms?

Somepolisci...:
As the definitive and final interpreter of the Constitution, I beg you to enlighten me on the following question:
How are we supposed to form a militia without arms?

The NRA has a lot of money to do that so the ACLU can concentrate on other things.

They tend to pick and choose which civil liberties they want to defend.

that's a damn good question

because they are being run by liberal interest groups and liberals want people needy and dependent on the government

You are a freak my friend.

Beacuse unlike the NRA and its supporters, the ACLU knows how to read the constitution and nowhere does it grant the right of anyone not in a militia to bear arms.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They're a private charity organization funded by private donations and take on whichever cases they choose. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1939 that set the precedent for the courts interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I personally disagree, but I can't disparage a private charity for not wanting to challenge it.

I'm more than happy that they are working diligently to protect my other rights, and the NRA, which exists wholly for the purpose of protecting the 2nd Amendment, is more than welcome to pick up the slack.

If you feel the ACLU should change its stance, start your own legal charity. The ACLU challenges the government or its agents, not private citizens, and won't care in the least that you would like to challenge the government on your own.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment is one of the few not incorporated against the states via the 14th. In other words, the 2nd Amendment only applies to federal regulation of 'arms', not to state/local regulation.

And as noted above, the use of the phrase "a well regulated militia" highlights the original intent that the purpose of that amendment was to protect the state's against the federal government, not the individual against the state.