I'd be shocked. Knowing the people I know that work for them as law students they'd be alienating a lot of their support base. If they go this way they really need to find a more libertarian message. I consider myself a libertarian and I often disagree with the ACLU, but that's another thread
What does it mean to deal with a case "in a pro 2A manner?" If the ACLU has taken a gun case, I'd like to see it.
Here's the ACLU's website rendition of their stand on the 2nd A. http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html Doesn't sound at all pro2a to me. Nothwithstanding some really poor logic (e.g., an unlimited right would let us all have nukes), the collective rights position would essentially write the 2A out for us and leave us at the mercy of the state and local legislators.
The idea behind the ACLU is good, and I'm happy there's a group willing to argue the hard cases, but it's a shame they don't recognize all of our liberties. I've been shocked at the anti-gun attitudes of the few people I've met or known who worked for the ACLU. Almost every one of them had the "fear response" to guns, or worse, didn't have much of an actual argument against them but just felt it was the sort of thing they should be against. When pushed, they seemed horrified that they should find themselves on the same side of a Constitutional argument as the NRA and tried to wiggle around the ammendment. The ACLU workers I've known have been young, though, and most were raised in urban areas. While in most cases their fathers and, sometimes, mothers had guns, their parents didn't shoot much anymore (probably nowhere to shoot as the cities grew up around them), so the kids hadn't really handled guns or learned anything about them. Like a lot of kids these days, they took their cues about guns from the media. They all had that "guns are only for killing" idea in their heads.
Where's the illogic about nukes? What's illogical about saying that if the Second Amendment were interpreted to mean that anybody could have any kind of weapon they wanted for any legal purpose, to include both personal defense, community defense, and national defense, such a right would allow for individuals to own bazookas, hand grenades, mines, and mortars? And why couldn't wealthy individuals, corporations, civic organizations (Rotary Club, American Legion Post #1234, etc.) and municipalities own expensive and large weapons that are simply too much for any individual to own-- like tanks, field artillery, missile launchers? Even nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons could be made small and cheap enough for somebody like Pepsi to buy, and aim at Coke, out of fear that Coke may have such weapons already aimed at Pepsi. If each company says that they believe they are in danger and that only by having such weapons available in self-defense can they feel safe, who here is going to say that this is patently unreasonable, and that the government will disarm both of them so that neither one will have a reason to feel threatened by the other? Don't even try to tell me that small arms were the only privately-owned weapons the founding fathers intended the 2A to apply to. In their day, they had rockets with exploding / incindiary warheads, and they had cannons. Private individuals, corporations, and little villages could own and maintain such weapons without any federal oversight or restriction. When the 2A was drafted, there was nothing in the arsenal of the Continental Army that private citizens could not have, if they could afford it, and if it were for a legitimate purpose. And who's going to say that heavy artillery, missles, and bombs are not legitimate weapons of warfare that could be used to defend America from an invasion, or to put down a civil war or insurrection, or to launch an overthrow of a totalitarian government that needs to be replaced with a democratic one? The ACLU is right that there must be restrictions and limits on the Second Amendment. We just disagree as to what those limits are, because we disagree about what the goal of the 2A was. (ACLU says it is to arm cops and National Guard troops; we say it was meant to encourage a well-armed population that is an independent fighting force to be rekoned with).
I think we're lucky we have the ACLU because they do protect many of our right that could easily be taken from. I do wish they recognized the second amendment and protected it with the same vigor they show for others. Fortunately, we have the NRA taking pretty good care of that one. The combination seems to be working. So far anyway....
Re: Where's the illogic about nukes? If they accepted your premise, it would mean that they too are responsible for protecting this country. They just aren't prepared to do that, so it is easier to accept their premise.