The ACLU begs the Alligator to Eat it Last

That's the way to take this article published on their own blog. A Pro-Liberty Case for Gun Restrictions

Jay Stanley one of the org's Senior Policy Analysts makes the case.

That is if Governments don't pass Gun Control Laws they'll instead pass other laws such as:

•  More physical searches
•  More Surveillance
•  More databases and watch lists 
•  More armed police in more situations
•  More police shootings

And their solution is to push for gun control?

Nevermind that the War On Guns would make the War On Drugs look like a picnic.

But what Gun control is the ACLU looking for?

I mean Stop and Frisk was largely about checking people for /guns/, in a jurisdiction where Legal carry was defacto banned.

As for watchlsits, the ACLU was against the whole "No Fly No Buy" which is using secret blacklists to ban people from owning guns.

And do they really think that if the police are more suspect that someone has an illegal gun that they would be less inclined to wrongly use violence?

Meanwhile the ACLU in this /very article/ talks down Red Flag Laws and Extreme Protective Orders?

So... what gun control exactly do they think is okay?

But the last paragraph shows what it's really about:

As we as a society consider the issue of gun violence, these implications for American freedom also need to become part of the conversation. In particular, 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.

In other words:  Stop defending your gun rights you icky gun nuts!  The state's going to go after stuff I like instead!

Turn that around, the article is literally saying "Hey, how many of the rights I like can I get in exchange for agreeing to some gun control?"

Of course given Gun Control would result in less privacy (data bases watch-lists, ect), less due process (red flag laws and other bans), and more police interference....

It seems like a rather sucky trade.

Also... does the ACLU really want to take the argument "Because there are a lot of X in the country, the State may overreact and infringe on unrelated rights, therefore we should support restrictions on X!"

Then add in this stance where the ACLU has said this in an internal memo:  "Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."

Yeah.