Years ago, while watching a debate about the ACLU, someone asked why a group that supposedly defends the Bill of Rights ignores the Second Amendment so completely. The other side simply remarked that the ACLU doesn’t fool with it because there are other groups that defend the Second Amendment, but few that focus on the others.

For a while, I accepted that well enough. I mean, I don’t always buy the ACLU’s position, but I could accept that they simply left the Second Amendment to other organizations more focused on that sacred right.

However, it now seems that the other guy was wrong. There’s a completely different reason the ACLU ignores the Second Amendment from their activities. It’s because, surprise surprise, they’re anti-gun.

What purpose is served by the American Civil Liberties Union? I know that the words “civil liberties” appear right there in the name, but it’s increasingly difficult to take that seriously as the organization’s mission. Just a month after leaked internal ACLU case-selection guidelines revealed the organization to be stepping back from viewpoint-neutral advocacy of free speech rights, the ACLU claims that vigorous advocacy for self-defense rights is to blame for government expansion of the security state. “Mass shootings create a pervasive sense of insecurity and anxiety that politicians and policymakers will inevitably seek to address,” senior policy analyst Jay Stanley insists on the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project blog. As a result, he argues, “those who support expansive gun rights as a protection against excessive government power should strongly consider how much government intrusion and expanded power they’re willing to trade for those rights.” This is the old “why do you make him hit you?” argument applied to civil liberties. It excuses the actions of the abuser—the state in this case—as reactions to the missteps of the abused. But it’s actually a step further removed, because most gun owners fly entirely below the state’s radar. They’re among the general population getting slapped by policies that politicians justify as responses to the crimes of a tiny minority.

Reason‘s J.D. Tucille goes on with plenty of other examples, but I think you can get the point.

The ACLU has never viewed the gun owners of America has part of their constituency, and for the most part, gun owners have felt the same way. The average gun owner tends to view the ACLU as something akin to road kill that’s been rotting on the highway for a hot three days in August. If asked to make a choice of which they’d prefer to spend time with, most would pick the road kill.

But the ACLU is supposed to be one of those organizations that don’t really take sides. For the longest time, while they wouldn’t defend the Second Amendment, they would make little comment against it either. They simply ignored it, like the Second Amendment simply didn’t exist.

That was bad, but this is worse.

This provides even more cover for anti-gun crusaders to feel justified in trying to destroy our Second Amendment rights. Now they can do it with the righteousness of the ACLU. As if they needed more self-righteous justification.

Meanwhile, the ACLU has also undermined every argument they intend to make from here on out. They’re deluded if they think this argument won’t be thrown against them over and over and over. Lord knows, I sure as hell plan to do so. I’m also pretty sure I’m not alone.

While it comes as no surprise to most that the ACLU is no ally in the fight to defend the Second Amendment, it’s good to know that they’re actually hostile to it.

I’ve always figured it’s better to know who is your enemy outright, you know?