>Don't have anything to say about that? Then please stay out of the discussion rather than changing topics and blurring the issues. Thanks.

The topic of this thread is actually that we have a lot of people serving life in prison for non-violent crimes.

Your post is now 8ish levels deep and asking people to prove that the ACLU is a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights.

This seems like a pretty big topic change and blurring of the issues.

I think they're a strong supporter of the Second Amendment as per the way they interpret it; they have filed a number of briefs in support of cases that fit their definition.

Let's stop with the farce: your complaint is that you don't like their interpretation, and so you choose to change the topic and blur the issue on a completely different thread to grind that ax of yours.

No, my complaint is that there's a difference between "supporter" and "strong supporter", and that if the latter is to have any meaning at all, the ACLU doesn't meet it.

How do you differentiate a "supporter" from a "strong supporter"? If I firmly believed that the First Amendment only protects pro-government speech, and filed the occasional legal brief in defense of those prosecuted under this interpretation, would that make me a "strong supporter" of the First Amendment? Would you talk about how crazy wicked cool it is that a nutty right-winger like me paradoxically has a thing for protecting the first amendment?

Or, to avoid the issue of weak interpretations of amendments, how about if I had the "normal" 1st amendment views, and had a "pro-Bill of Rights" group that spent only a token amount of effort protecting infringements on speech (or the other 1A stuff), and never to represent any such client? Still a "strong" supporter? Or just a "supporter"?