If the ACLU were pro-gun-rights, would you join?

If the ACLU backed the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd, would you join?

  • Yes, I've been waiting for them to do just that, not just defend the other amendments

    Votes: 40 35.4%

  • No, I have additional reasons to not be willing to support them

    Votes: 73 64.6%
  • Total voters
    113
Meek and Mild,

How the heck are pedophiles NOT sick. I've heard pedophiles described as having mental defficiencies, and that pedophillia, like alcoholism, is a disease. Which however doesn't excuse the individual's decision to engage in said behaviors.

They are sick, mentally and morally, in my slightly outraged opinion on the subject. Outraged at their mere existence mind you, not because of your opinion, which you are most certainly entitled to.:cool:
 
If you don't see that site as encouraging child molesters then your off your rocker. What about the warning to sicko's about planning trips overseas to rape children?
 
How the heck are pedophiles NOT sick. I've heard pedophiles described as having mental defficiencies, and that pedophillia, like alcoholism, is a disease. Which however doesn't excuse the individual's decision to engage in said behaviors.

They are sick, mentally and morally, in my slightly outraged opinion on the subject. Outraged at their mere existence mind you, not because of your opinion, which you are most certainly entitled to.
Click to expand...

+1

Pedophiles are sick. Someone should make a law agisnt them completly. Make it as bad as commiting murder. Kids that get moslested and raped never have a normal life after that. I am friends with a few girls that have been moslested while they were young. It ruins a kids life. :(

Commiting rape or molesting kids scars them and there relationships for life. Its not simply the act that is the problem is the life long problems it causes with the kids as well. People forget about long term effects. :mad:

But hey what do I know personally I'd make raping little kids just as bad as murder if I had the chance to change the laws.

Dimitri
 
If it were up to me all child molesters would be castrated upon conviction. I agree the punishment should fit the crime. If you ruin someones life then you shuold be behind bars the rest of yours bottom line.
 
ACLU does not stand for American Civil Liberties Union..it stands for Anti-Christian Liberation Unified...why would I join a group who seeks to destroy all that I belive is right and moral..?..their name is a lie to hide their real intentions....
 
Wow, I can't believe how naive some of you must be regarding the ACLU?! To think that just that 1 issue is enough to sway you to start supporting such an organization is beyond comprehension. Some of you need to start doing some research on what they support before blindly saying yes I would support them if they were in favor of guns.:mad:
 
Wow, I can't believe how naive some of you must be regarding the ACLU?! To think that just that 1 issue is enough to sway you to start supporting such an organization is beyond comprehension. Some of you need to start doing some research on what they support before blindly saying yes I would support them if they were in favor of gunsl.:mad:
 
How the heck are pedophiles NOT sick.
Click to expand...
It must be shocking for you to encounter someone who still believes in the concept of human evil. Take slow deep breaths into a paper sack and the dizziness will pass.

Let me make myself clear. Willful acts of moral depravity do not equal sickness. They are evil actions. You can call them sickness or addiction or for that matter you can call them a pinapple upside down cake with cherry icing but that doesn't make them anything other than acts of criminal misconduct. (Nor does putting pedophilia in the DSMIV, but that is another story.)

By pretending that NAMBLA members are sick you do all true mentally ill persons harm.
 
"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"?"

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?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter whether they use violent means in some aspects of what they do. THEIR SPEECH is what is still protected; not their violent acts. Learn to separate the two.

And by the way, speech that incites violence is not protected. If some dude had a car accident in front of you, and you excitedly urged the guy who got hit to go and kill the irresponsible driver who hit him and he did so, you'd probably get into trouble.


-azurefly
 
GoSlash27 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, that wasn't really what I meant, and I think that would be clear if you responded to my statement without removing it from the context of my whole post.

I dunno. I guess I've already thrown in my two cents. Not much more for me to say about it.
 
Stratus,
I know that wasn't what you meant, but it is what you're advocating. Freedom of speech means freedom to say things that the rest of us find offensive and even disgusting. This case could easily have come about exactly as I have laid it out and you'd be singing a different tune. There are alot of people out there who find the idea of guns reprehensible.
Protecting their freedom of speech is protecting *your own* freedom of speech.
 
It doesn't matter whether they use violent means in some aspects of what they do. THEIR SPEECH is what is still protected; not their violent acts. Learn to separate the two.
Click to expand...
I personally know little old people who were beaten, chased and harried by the Klan 40, 50 years ago. The intimidation factor remains forever. They still cringe in fear when they hear some moron in a white sheet whether he is talking about killing or dressed up for a costume ball and talking about golf.

Unlimited freedom of speech is a sacred cow for some people, I'm not neccessarily saying you're one of them. Freedom to be let alone and not have to live in fear is vastly underrated OTOH.

Back on topic, I find the ACLU to have dubious motivation, zealous pursuit of questionable goals and to be generally something I could never support.
 
M&M,

First off, we agree on our stances that we would never support the aclu. Just to keep this on topic.

But I don't really see how the concept of human evil factors into it. I know that some pedophiles do not know why they are urged to committ these acts. I believe pedophillia has everything to do with uncontrolled urges, therefore, since they don't make the concious decision to have these urges, it must be something, physical, menatal, or psychological. All three of which are very susceptible to disease. What makes them accountable for their actions is that they choose to act on those urges and impulses.

If someone said they intended to kill my whole family, I would certainly have the urge to stand them against a pole, push a rubber tire around them so they can't get away, pour gas on them and light them on fire. It's a horrible thing to do to anyone, but NOONE messes with my family. However I CHOOSE not to act on that urge. Self control is what seperates men from animals. And the responsible from the criminals.

It's not like the movies, pedophilles don't sit in their basements looking at kiddyporn, and cackling to themselves that they will abuse children and ruin their whole lives so the pedophilles can one day rule the world, it's not that kind of human evil. They do it cause they can't, don't, or won't control their impulses. I'm not even a psychologist and I can figure that out.:cool:
 
GoSlash27 said:
I know that wasn't what you meant, but it is what you're advocating. Freedom of speech means freedom to say things that the rest of us find offensive and even disgusting.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that point with you. I'm simply pointing out certain permutations that you refuse to acknowledge. In my first post on this thread, I took great pains to describe the reasons why I believe that the people in NAMBLA are hypocrites: they exercise their own right to make speeches about violating the rights of little boys. How messed up is that? I'm simply exercising MY right to expose them for the diabolical bastards they are. And that's just ONE example of some of the despicable organizations that are out there. Though freedom of speech is their protected right, they have NO right to trample the rights of others.

What it amounts to is that NAMBLA is making a daily, continuous effort to attain special rights or privileges that would grant them the ability to have sex with children with total legal impunity. And know this: behind closed doors, they are already practicing what they preach. That seem very Constitutional to you? No? I didn't think so.

In a country wrought with complexities that the founding fathers could never have anticipated, liberty and justice for all is a complex problem. I believe that there is always a solution, however, and the United States government is charged with finding and implementing that solution, regardless of the difficulty of the task, for the sake of the rights of all of its citizens.

I don't think you'll find anything in my first post that says "we should shut these people up". All I did was give fair warning that free speech does not constitute the ultimate extent of their goals. We must let them make their petitions, but I guarantee you that by not investigating the internal affairs of this organization, we've already allowed the rights of a number of children across the country to be compromised. I'm just not naive enough to think that all they are doing is exercising their right to free speech (which, in and of itself, I grant; I hope that is clear by now.) When someone is arrested for charges of child molestation, I don't think it would be a bad idea to ascertain whether they have connections with NAMBLA.

And... you sort of described gun owners as a category of people who have "centered our entire hobby around hurting someone". That's just ridiculous. We don't actively seek to hurt anyone, we just want to protect ourselves from people who do!

I would offer to "agree to disagree", but I feel that this is probably a failure for each of us to understand 100% where the other person is coming from. But I am definitely trying to clarify some aspects of my own point of view. If I seem somewhat intense or emphatic in conveying my thoughts, please understand it's nothing personal, it's just my "style".
 
Last edited:
Stratus,
I actually find myself in almost complete agreement with what you have posted above. My only gripe is in how this case came about.
Some guy does some horrible things to a little boy. When they raid his place they find "NAMbLA" stuff. So they attempt to hold the entire organization responsible for it? What's even worse is that after that attempt failed they tried to hold other individuals within that group responsible for it...when they had nothing to do with it!
This is why I feel the comparison to us is valid. Imagine if they had found some copies of S.W.A.T. magazine in that kid's room up in Columbine and tried to disband this forum, failed in that, and went after each of us individually.

Yes, NAMbLA is a political lobbying group (with goals that I heartily disagree with) But lobbying isn't a crime. They have provided no evidence that NAMbLA aided or abetted anybody in the prosecution of a crime and until they do this the case is unconstitutional.
If they're going to attack the organization, they need a legal case against the organization. If they're going to attack the individuals, they need a case against the individuals.

In the meantime, I will support their right to say things I don't like in exchange for my own right to say things others don't like.
 
Well that's certainly true, I am of course very committed to a firm belief in the whole due process thing. I think the comparison is probably valid in how the media might react, because (pertaining to gun owners) they often want to find any excuse they can to spread the blame across as widest area possible. In reference to your example, they'll (rightly) blame the shooter, but then they might blame S.W.A.T. magazine and even the gun itself. Then they'll blame the vegetable oil used to cook the fries at Burger King as the insidious culprit that drove the "poor" guy out of his mind.

I find nothing that I really disagree with in what you're saying, I think what you and I have been talking about are two sides to the same coin. The last thing I would ever want to do is give anyone the impression that the first amendment is somehow conditional in my eyes. It's not; it's absolute. I wouldn't have it any other way. But, I also want to look out for the rights of the children, and these people are advocating the legalization of statutory rape of small boys, which to me, well, just isn't cool. It's also against the law, and while the first amendment involves freedom of speech, it does not protect people from the consequences of their actions, nor should it.

Being vigilant is not a one-sided thing, and we have to constantly check ourselves to make sure we are not violating the Constitutional rights of other people. We must allow them to believe what they believe, or say what they wish to say, even if it speaks out against some law or even some transcendent ethical principle. But once they ACT against that law or ethical principle, then it's time for intervention, for all our sakes. It's an elusive, straight-and-narrow path that most people frankly don't adhere to. There are far too many people who exercise their individual rights without a thought to the individual rights of others. When you meet someone who thinks he (and perhaps the group that shares his precise beliefs) is the only one who should be protected by the Constitution, then you have met a narcissist, whose perceptions of the foundational principles of this country are skewed, at best.

Have a good Sunday, I'm gonna be gone for some hours. :)
 
Glock, OK I'll concede the point that pedophilic behavior can be the result of mental or physical defect. From time to time in the past I've seen little old men with Alzheimer's disease or kids with seizure disorder who are also pedophiles. But it is not in and of itself a disease or sickness. It is (1) learned (2) maladaptive (3) pleasurable and (this is the operant point here) (4) teachable. In fact it meets the definition of a meme.

An associated meme is the one which the ACLU has perpetrated and which several members here have embraced, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." somehow means that states, local governments and private citizens must somehow allow such speech or magically lose their own right to speech.

The Bill of Rights was not some new concept which was magically pulled out of the FF's behinds. It was just the codification of common law declared so the people would not have to worry that the central government would interfere with their normal daily activities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights

The ACLU has as one of its main goals the removal of supervision, command and control of normal daily activities from the realm of the common law and into the realm of Federal jurisdiction. Using your necklacing fantasies as an example, I would believe that particular concept is offensive so would ask you to refrain from speaking of it. If you don't that is your business but I would presume that some one in your normal sphere of influence would probably get tired of it after a while and deal with it one way or another (probably your wife, possibly with a baseball bat). It is not something which needs to involve the Federal government, the Constitution or the ACLU.
 
And so here we are. +1 and a good day to you as well.
For the record, I don't consider NAMbLA's lobbying to be a credible threat to anybody's safety. Their position is so far out there in the twilight zone that they'll never find any political backers. It does raise an interesting question tho':
Does their lobbying present reasonable cause for an investigation? I think it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top