United Nations: You Have No Right To Self-Defense

Not unbelievable. Sickening, but it certainly fits in with the UN worldview.

I show them, I don't believe in the UN.:D
 
The problem is there's too many chiefs and not enough indians anymore. everybody is making stupid laws and regulations. Nonsensical idiots being elected to office and nobody can do a thing about it.


We the sheeple....
 
All:

While I don't agree with all their positions, I am proud to be an ACLU member.

The UN is a speck on the screen compared to the complete disregard and contempt George Bush and company have displayed for the United States Constitution.

Don't get me started.

Kowboy
 
All:

While I don't agree with all their positions, I am proud to be an ACLU member.

The UN is a speck on the screen compared to the complete disregard and contempt George Bush and company have displayed for the United States Constitution.

Don't get me started.

Kowboy
Click to expand...

Good for you, I don't agree with any of their positions and I'm proud to not be a member.
 
As of April 2005 the wrongful death cases were still before the courts, with the ACLU assisting the defendants on the grounds that the suit violated their First Amendment rights. [3]. The ACLU makes it clear, however, that it does not endorse NAMBLA's objectives. "We've never taken a position that sexual-consent laws are beyond the state's power to legislate," John Reinstein, attorney for the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in 1997. "I've never been able to fathom their position." (Boston Globe, October 9, 1997).
Click to expand...

Interpert quietly to yourself, so the thread can stay civil and on topic. ;)
 
Code: 
Crossposted With Permission From Merri Musings

NAMBLA states that they are on an important, historic mission. They state that their mission is simple. Abolition of age of consent laws that classify sex with children as rape. NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group’s web site shortly before the killing of Jeffrey Curley, a 10 year old boy, slain in 1997. Jaynes also had in his possession some of NAMBLA’s publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24 year old Salvatore Sicari. Sicari, convicted of first degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes’ second degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole within the next 20 years. Was this a case of misunderstanding? Does this fit with NAMBLA’s philosophy of man/boy love that is non violent? Hardly. Prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. They then stuffed him into a concrete filled container and dumped it into a Maine river. Non violent? No. Loving? No.

The ACLU is a supporter of NAMBLA, representing the organization in the civil case related to the aforementioned murder. The ACLU is representing NAMBLA PRO BONO. Their official position: “In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.” I am repulsed. Repulsed by the idea that my children may not be able to say “…one Nation, under God” in school some future day .. thanks to the ACLU .. but this disgusting, vile organization is supported due to freedom of speech?

In February 2005, the FBI arrested three NAMBLA members at Harbor Island as they waited for a boat that undercover agents told them would sail to Ensenada for a sex retreat over Valentine’s Day with boys as young as 9. The FBI also arrested four additional NAMBLA members in a Los Angeles marina where they also planned to set sail to the same bogus retreat. These men are a cross section of people you and I might interact with regularly: a dentist, a special education teacher, a substitute teacher, a handyman, a flight attendant who is also a psychologist, a paper company employee and a personal trainer. How horrific to know that a number of these men had daily interactions with children! As noted in court papers, most of these men told the undercover agent they had been sexually involved with children historically, including boys they met on the Internet and others. Looking more closely at these men, at least one of the men is a member of NAMBLA’s national leadership, a second organized their national convention in 2004 and a third has been a NAMBLA member since the 1980s. Thank God these criminals have been discovered so no more boys are harmed.

So what of Charles Jaynes? The Boston Herald reports that Jaynes is now battling efforts by his victim’s mother to uncover whether NAMBLA is bankrolling Jaynes’ prison canteen. There were court affidavits from two inmates claiming Jaynes engages in sex acts in the prison without discipline, shows off his victim’s autopsy and has a fat canteen account courtesy of NAMBLA. While one of these inmates has now recanted their story, questions are still present about what NAMBLA is doing for Jaynes while he is in prison. I won’t link to NAMBLA’s disgusting site, but they do have a Prisoner Program for those convicted of pedophilia. The program on their website clearly states that they do not financially support prisoners, but provides instruction on what type of information should be sent to these criminals. Here’s what NAMBLA says about those incarcerated for, what they believe, are unfounded criminal acts: “Incarceration is a terrible thing. For a boy lover ground into the criminal justice system, it is an especially harrowing fate.” What about the fate of that 10 year old boy whose lifeless body was stuffed into a container and tossed away into the river?
 
Any gun owner who is an ACLU member, it's too bad you can't see what some woman there wrote back to me when I wrote them about their nonsensical view of the second amendment.

Background: My best friend was somewhat anti-gun but when I got my first handgun he got interested, and bought several guns himself. (He had to get rid of them for other reasons since then.) He never joined the NRA, though, because he didn't like the fact that they lobby. (!!) He did, however, join the ACLU. I tried to explain to him that without the NRA he wouldn't have gun rights; that the ACLU does the same things the NRA does (lobbying) and is not above the NRA.

We struck a compromise one year: I bought him an NRA membership and he bought me an ACLU membership (birthday presents).

Anyway, they continue to send me renewal notices (like for the last 4 years!) I occasionally write stuff on them and send them back (the cheap bastards don't send self-postage envelopes so I have to shell out for the stamp!) explaining that I will support them when they come to their senses about the real meaning of the second amendment.

So this woman, some sort of manager for membership or something, sent me a snippy letter back and enclosed some articles. Guess what the articles were! Junk about the Arthur Kellerman "study" about how guns are 47 -- no, 43 -- no, 22 times more likely to kill a loved one... and some other stuff about Michael Bellesisles thoroughly debunked "Arming America" (the one where he tried to use imaginary records to prove that among early Americans gun ownership was actually very rare. :rolleyes:

They are a joke. They hold a position on gun rights that is 100% intellectually dishonest. Why? Because they are an organization that is wholly leftist in its political ideology. Of course they won't take a pro-gun stance. It's not consistent with their views, so they would never advance such a reading of the second amendment. So, they don't ge my support. They get my contempt.


-azurefly
 
The UN stance on this issue, along with the ACLU, should come as no surprise to anyone here, this Origination is now, and for the last many years, been an group that show absolutely no interest at all to be a Peace Keeping Group, the last events in Rwanda, Darfur, Sudan, Mogadishu should all serve as reminders of how ineffectual they are,

They will talk a problem to death, with absolutely no results, and insist that Diplomacy, is the only way to solve the crisis, all the while, people are butchered, bombed, and many other things.

The UN is absolutely worthless, as a peace keeping force, and now with them in the south of Lebanon again, I hope people don’t get their hopes up for a stop to the conflict, or the blocking of Hizbolla rearming themselves with more rockets, all the while the UN will be directing traffic for the convoys of arms, so as not to slow traffic for Civilian use.

As for the ACLU, I have several ideas as what we need to do to and for them, non of which, I can share here, but suffice to say non of them, are polite and may border on questionable.
 
I'm sure I know how you feel (more about the U.N. than the ACLU, since the former seems actually nefarious and the latter seems just, well, misguided and dumb) but even omitting the "questionable" things that you'd like to do to them, it's probably not a good idea to post that kind of sentiment...

Plenty of people get nervous when folks they know own guns start saying things like, "Why, I oughta...! :mad: "


-azurefly
 
Although I severly dislike U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, if there's anybody who's got it in their blood to tell the rest of the U.N. to bugger-off, I think it's him.
 
From the link:

20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
Click to expand...

I can't say that I disagree with what's written. Whether you call it a right, a dispensation, or use another legal term to describe it, it's a way to legally get away with homocide, or assault.
 
Like hell it is. What a fatuous statement. "Assault" is a legal term. It is a criminal act. "Homicide" may or may not be a criminal act, and may or may not be justifiable, depending on the circumstances.

Self defense is not "getting away" with anything. It is getting away from a criminal's attempts to deprive you of your life.
 
Perhaps "legally get away with" was not the right phrase to use, but the concept is still the same.

If I have to assault someone to defend myself, I have still assaulted them. The question is, do I have a defense? If I do, then I have avoided being charged or convicted of assault by virtue of the fact that it was legal for me to commit the assault. If the assault is legal, then it is not a criminal act. If the homocide is legal, then it is not a criminal act.

I'm not sure what the argument is here. We don't seem to disagree, yet someone has their hackles up.
 
Why, maybe because defense is NOT assault? You assault me, I defend myself. TOTALLY different concepts. The latter is NOT legal assault and it is not getting away with anything. The entire position isn't even a difference in semantics, it is simply facile, sorry.
 
"Justification" people - in any prosecution for an offense, justification is a defense (if any of the many conditions are met - i.e. self defense of yourself or another, making arrest, etc. etc.).


NYS Penal...
Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article [35] defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top