If the ACLU were pro-gun-rights, would you join?
- Thread starter azurefly
- Start date
Whether or not you like what NAMBLA has to say, they have a constitutionally protected right to say it. I suspect that alot of you folks don't know what the case was about.
Alot of people don't like the ACLU because it defends rights they wish we didn't have. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, illegal search and seizure, etc.
Freedom of speech only needs defended when the speech itself is unpopular.
Alot of people don't like the ACLU because it defends rights they wish we didn't have. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, illegal search and seizure, etc.
Freedom of speech only needs defended when the speech itself is unpopular.
GoSlash27---Whether or not you like what NAMBLA has to say, they have a constitutionally protected right to say it
Are you sick? First off, it's illegal! Next, it's not them saying anything----it's them wanting the right to legally have sex with kids! Wake up.
How ANYBODY can support this organization knowing these facts is beyond comprehension. I would equate what they do to pedophile priests-----so they do many good things for alot of people, but the fact that they rape young boys isn't enough to want them to stop preaching?
:barf:
Are you sick? First off, it's illegal! Next, it's not them saying anything----it's them wanting the right to legally have sex with kids! Wake up.
How ANYBODY can support this organization knowing these facts is beyond comprehension. I would equate what they do to pedophile priests-----so they do many good things for alot of people, but the fact that they rape young boys isn't enough to want them to stop preaching?
:barf:Glock35JHP
New member
Yeah advocating child molestation is not what I thought constitutionally protected speech was about? Using free speech to promote child molestation is not what the founding fathers had in mind I would think. As for me I will be donating to the Alliance Defense Fund.
This case had nothing to do with condoning statutory rape. Constitutionally protected speech is *all about* their right to say their piece. If they are --->doing<--- something illegal that's a different matter entirely.
I'm sure everybody here will agree that firearms manufacturers should not be held liable for the actions of gun owners, correct?
This specific case was about the government trying to hold NAMBLA responsible for a murder up in Massachussets.
Why don't you research the case and get back to me? I'll go ahead and post what the ACLU had to say about it in the meantime.
And I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm sure everybody here will agree that firearms manufacturers should not be held liable for the actions of gun owners, correct?
This specific case was about the government trying to hold NAMBLA responsible for a murder up in Massachussets.
Why don't you research the case and get back to me? I'll go ahead and post what the ACLU had to say about it in the meantime.
And I wholeheartedly agree.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Yes
In a heartbeat.
In a NY minute.
As it stands, HELL NO!
It's not complicated. Either one is in favor of ALL civil rights. Or one is in favor of selective civil rights. The ACLU has actively chosen the latter. It doesn't make sense to me.
In a heartbeat.
In a NY minute.
As it stands, HELL NO!
It's not complicated. Either one is in favor of ALL civil rights. Or one is in favor of selective civil rights. The ACLU has actively chosen the latter. It doesn't make sense to me.
Glock35JHP
New member
I know what is was about. NAMBLA should have been held liable. Their site is all about molesting children. Free Speech does not extend to people that want to have sex with children. It would have been a great blow to NAMBLA not to freedom of speech get it right. Wow a molester child killer was a member? That couldn't be they're all about trying to get understanding for men who wish to have sex with boys....
And how was NAMBLA responsible for the murder? Did they poison his drink? Pull the trigger??
Look...I'm a black guy. It goes without saying that I don't condone lynchings. I do, however, support freedom of speech for the KKK. Doesn't mean that I support their agenda, it only means that I support their right to say what they have to say.
Yes child-butt rape is nasty and reprehensible. We're all (including the ACLU) in agreement on that. But I have some really funny tasteless jokes on the subject. It doesn't mean that I should be held accountable for someone else's disturbing actions because I talked about it.
Look...I'm a black guy. It goes without saying that I don't condone lynchings. I do, however, support freedom of speech for the KKK. Doesn't mean that I support their agenda, it only means that I support their right to say what they have to say.
Yes child-butt rape is nasty and reprehensible. We're all (including the ACLU) in agreement on that. But I have some really funny tasteless jokes on the subject. It doesn't mean that I should be held accountable for someone else's disturbing actions because I talked about it.
Begging your pardon, but yes it does. It does not, however, mean that they have the right to engage in illegal acts.
For over 200 years there has been discourse about interpretation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In addition to disagreeing with ACLU's interpretation of the 2nd, I disagree with their interpretation of the Establishment Clause most adamantly as I believe our Founding Fathers would. (not to mention their interpretation of the 1st as a whole)
In addition to disagreeing with ACLU's interpretation of the 2nd, I disagree with their interpretation of the Establishment Clause most adamantly as I believe our Founding Fathers would. (not to mention their interpretation of the 1st as a whole)
Glock35JHP
New member
Well, if you support free speech for the KKK then cross burning shouldn't be illegal right? Nothing wrong with that... They're just exercising their rights?
Glock35JHP
New member
It's illegal in public places if the intent is to intimidate a person or group. I wasn't refering to private property.
MeekAndMild
New member
I have a big problem with their stance for protection of porn publication and but the prohibition of public displays of religious artifacts.
Also, the Klan doesn't deserve free speech nor does the Nation of Islam.
http://www.bebroken.com/stats.htm
Also, the Klan doesn't deserve free speech nor does the Nation of Islam.
http://www.bebroken.com/stats.htm
Really, M&M... What's the difference between what you said and saying something like, "Blacks don't deserve freedom of speech nor does the NRA"?
EVERYONE deserves freedom of speech. But we do, as a society, draw the line at certain places, like advocating people to riot, or making false claims about others. UNPOPULARITY should not be a reason to deny someone their right to speak their mind.
If a person likes the idea of having sex with minor boys, he can SPEAK about it all day long, post on the internet, write to the newspaper -- EVEN petition to get it made legal. That is a world apart from claiming that he has the right to DO it.
You know, you people get up in arms about a school telling a kid he can't wear a shirt with a picture of a gun on it, or a gun maker logo... and still you can't see this logic. Unreal.
-azurefly
EVERYONE deserves freedom of speech. But we do, as a society, draw the line at certain places, like advocating people to riot, or making false claims about others. UNPOPULARITY should not be a reason to deny someone their right to speak their mind.
If a person likes the idea of having sex with minor boys, he can SPEAK about it all day long, post on the internet, write to the newspaper -- EVEN petition to get it made legal. That is a world apart from claiming that he has the right to DO it.
You know, you people get up in arms about a school telling a kid he can't wear a shirt with a picture of a gun on it, or a gun maker logo... and still you can't see this logic. Unreal.
-azurefly
I disagree with you, and here's why:GoSlash27 said:
There are people who just have opinions but don't do much to practice what they preach. But there are plenty of people in this world who are passionate about this or that, and they therefore have an agenda that includes enabling themselves to engage in actions which are consistent with their opinions. When an organized group of people voice their opinions, it is almost invariably intended to be a means of advancing their agenda, whatever it may be. Obviously there is nothing inherently wrong with this; what makes it right or wrong is the nature of the activity that they promote.
Take a Constitutional activity such as gun ownership, for instance. As supporters of the Second Amendment, we don't just advocate the usefulness of firearms; we frequently own and shoot them as well. Nothing wrong with that! But what if the advocated activity is something that hurts others, or infringes on them in some way? Well, in my view, that crosses a very clear and visible line. And I guarantee you that at least some of the members of NAMBLA, who argue for the right to have sexual relations with boys (and to emotionally manipulate boys into resigning themselves to the whole idea) are already doing it covertly and have no plans to cease doing so.
Yeah, we have a right to an opinion, so long as we're not hurting anybody. It's the difference between saying "Sometimes I just feel like killing somebody" and "I am entitled to kill somebody if the urge should strike me." You really think it's okay for a person, or a group of people, to attempt to earn the right to molest children? I don't think there is any such thing as a child who is capable of avoiding serious psychological trauma if molested. Moreover, if a child is molested on a continuous basis, the damage is incalculable. They are vulnerable and open to manipulation because they haven't yet reached the level of psychological development to fend or think for themselves. They hardly understand how to interpret their feelings at all, so if they feel shame, they might not understand what's causing it, and blame themselves for the entire situation, none of which is their fault. They don't always have the wherewithal to know when they are being taken advantage of, or being violated in some way - and so it's not really "consentual". Even though they might know on some level that something is radically wrong with the situation involving the adult that is molesting and/or engaging in intercourse with them, they're susceptible to being very confused, they may capitulate to the will of the stronger adult, and in the long run, they will become quite damaged. These children are being preyed on and used by people who are older, cleverer, and far less fragile than themselves. Who could DO this? "Evil" is not an adequate term to describe it.
I know that this is not a pleasant issue to discuss, but I cannot let this pass. NAMBLA are not just spouting opinions. It goes well beyond that: they are an organized group with a malignant and clearly-defined agenda. Yes, we might have to tolerate their opinion, but the United States is under no obligation to address it in any fashion, and I am under no obligation to respect such an opinion. One might as well exercise the right to free speech concerning murder or rape.
Just please don't tell me that you're supporting the right of these scumbags to attempt to advance their agenda in any way. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize.
Last edited:
MeekAndMild
New member
Handy,
Funny, but I always thought of you as being a non-violent and relatively rational person. And I thought you could distinguish between speech in the service of pursuing the usual range of human endeavor versus speech in the service of pursuit of genocide. Could you explain exactly how you believe how people should have the legal privilage of unfettered speech in the service of genocidal goals?
Azurefly,
Stratus,
Glock31,
Back to the main topic, if the ACLU were to advocate for RKBA they would screw it up. They would probably demand that it be applied to death row inmates, psychotic individuals in the mental hospital, malignant organizations like the Klan, TNOI and NAMBLA and then they would try to have it forbidden to members of organized religions.
Really? If the Klan and/or TNOI had their way I would be getting a knock on the door right about now.
Funny, but I always thought of you as being a non-violent and relatively rational person. And I thought you could distinguish between speech in the service of pursuing the usual range of human endeavor versus speech in the service of pursuit of genocide. Could you explain exactly how you believe how people should have the legal privilage of unfettered speech in the service of genocidal goals?
Azurefly,
Because the purpose of both ACLU-approved organizations I mentioned is to advance their own interest by violent means. You mention that we should be able to "draw the line" but you seem to be afraid to actually draw it and then stand behind it. Why is that?
Stratus,
Quite eloquent. However I would like to ask you, where did the idea come from that we should be required to tolerate their opinion?
Glock31,
Just for the record I don't believe that they are sick. I believe that they have a learned pleasurable antisocial behavior which exists in large part only because those who incite it have not been adequately punished.
Back to the main topic, if the ACLU were to advocate for RKBA they would screw it up. They would probably demand that it be applied to death row inmates, psychotic individuals in the mental hospital, malignant organizations like the Klan, TNOI and NAMBLA and then they would try to have it forbidden to members of organized religions.
Stratus,
You raise an interesting analogy:
There is also plenty of talk around here about advancing our agenda through violence such as "when it becomes time to bury your guns, it's time to dig them up", etc.
Does that mean that we should be held responsible when a member shoots someone? No.
Talking and doing are 2 different subjects. The only exceptions are when the talk itself violates someone else's rights or induces others to do so. So if they had urged their members to go out and find a little boy to fondle then there would be a case. If all they were saying was that it shouldn't be illegal then ya got nuthin'.
You raise an interesting analogy:
What about somebody coming here and inquiring about a malfunctioning shotgun and then taking it on a shooting spree? Very many of us (including myself) have centered our entire hobby around hurting someone. We discuss the relative 'hurt' potential of different handgun calibers and bullets, select our handguns based on their potential to injure and practice shooting at human silhouette targets.
There is also plenty of talk around here about advancing our agenda through violence such as "when it becomes time to bury your guns, it's time to dig them up", etc.
Does that mean that we should be held responsible when a member shoots someone? No.
Talking and doing are 2 different subjects. The only exceptions are when the talk itself violates someone else's rights or induces others to do so. So if they had urged their members to go out and find a little boy to fondle then there would be a case. If all they were saying was that it shouldn't be illegal then ya got nuthin'.