Of course it doesn't. I didn't suggest it did.


How in the hell can you rationalize the legitimacy of perverseness by using RKBA vs. soccer moms as a model?!?!?  
Sexual orientated magazines and Gun magazines are two different animals.  The only commonality is they are both demonized, which in no way makes the subject of the magazines equal.
Go ahead and rationalize away though, the homo agenda will persue it's perverseness on the coat tails of every decent thing it can.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

lvgunner777: by forcing your beliefs on others you are truly a hypocrite to despise. Whether gay is right or wrong it's not going to go away. How long do you think you can shield the childern from this? If they want to know they are going to find out one way or the other. If someone is trying to keep me from seeing something I wanna see it just that much more.

You remind me of someone who bitches about the TV but won't shut it off. So, if you don't like what the library has on the shelf, DON'T FUCKING GO!!!

How much simpler can it be made for you???

Ahhh, sf, spoken like the true Irish Catholic you are.

i'm sorry, sir, what you don't understand is that not everyone bows to your God. further, are YOU judging your fellow humans? does not your God think this is bad.

YOUR argument demonizing another human's (or other humans') behavior(s) based on your concept of reality is not far removed from how many americans think of muslims. you seemed to have already dammed those who would appreciate the content of said magazine.

UNfortunately, it are the hypocrites that drove me from the church when i was a young adult. lately, those who publically profess faith seem very quick to judge others actions. hypocrite evangelism won't bring me back to your church to worship your God. i'll stick to the concept of the God of love; the one i believed in when i was baptised.

anyhow, sorry for the rant... it's just that this kind of stuff kinda pushes my buttons.

and to Mr Boom_Stick: you're welcome to think how you want; i (and countess thousands of other) served and are serving in the military for your freedom of thought, freedom of PRESS, and freedom of expression. the point of my little speech is to possibly cause a thought or two on the concept of tolerance.

[:)]

Bad analogy

The library has literally hundreds of thousands of "channels", channels being books.  Some of those channels aren't appropriate for kid's to look at.  Same as the porno channel on satellite,  just because it's there doesn't mean kid's should be able to look at it, do you agree or disagree.

So,  some idiot at the library thought it would be cute to air this particular "channel" in front of kids eyes.  That is WRONG pure and simple.  So in other words,  I CHANGED THE FUCKING CHANNEL!!!!

You see,  that library belongs to me and all the taxpayers of this country so I will continue to go and use that wonderful resource called the library.  I won't stop because some pervert is trying to ruin it by displaying faggots in front of kids.

I also am very aware of the fact that just because the library has books,  it DOESN'T MEAN ALL BOOKS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR KIDS TO SEE!!!!

By the way I never said they shouldn't have these books available AT ALL, I think they should be in an adult's only section.

I honestly don't think I was the first person to see that piece of trash,  I was just the only one with the balls to do something about it.

Are you serious? You should consider the subject matter before you quote it. Particulary WHO said the quote.
After Christ had written on the ground [i](what do you suppose he wrote?)[/i] he asked her if she was still in danger, then he said:  "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. [b][u]"Go now and leave your life of sin."[/b][/u](NIV) In otherwords sin no more? Be adulterous [b]no more?[/b]
Secondly, a stone is a far cry from calling upon perverseness to stop spreading it's filth.

What do you think he wrote in the dirt?

I don't need to you just did.....The word demonized. Both are demonized by people who just hate something, guns, queers, bikers you name it. Don't know a damn thing about it but by god we going to put a stop to it.

By all means continue in your ways. Thats your choice. I would say this though: belonging to a "church" was the first destraction in your search for the truth.


tolerance and acceptance are two entirely different things. My service to my country was not to uphold perverseness, nor allow for it to be common place and acceptable.

Well if your not care you and your balls will end up in jail with a nice big fine. And some of those channels would be gay kids and maybe they want to read about gay dating.And I pay my taxes [big time] and I want gay theme reading material in MY library.

[rolleyes]

Nah,  wouldn't go to jail for such a thing,  maybe you should stick to reading about things like "Fags: Dating in Today's Stressful World" and leave the grown up topics to grown ups.

IM Protestant[;)]

Guess the laws are different in your neck of the woods

some of you guys would make great brown shirts......I wouldn't doubt you would volunteer to join a group that burns books and any materials you deem not "approperiate".

so tell me what guidelines would you set to burn or ban books from the library, if a book has certain passages in it you don't like to see....and who among you feel that you have the right to decide?

no one is forcing you to sign out, or even read those magazine or books.....but they are there if someone else wants to read them. it's called freedom....and neither you, or anybody else has the right to destroy a magazine or a book....if you want to destroy that mag, buy a copy and do it.

you want this magazine out or that book out...then where will you stop after that?  you'll go after other materials..like music, games etc..

the point is not about if being a fag is right or wrong...it's about stifling free speech.  


for a bunch of "freedom loving" Americans you do have a perservse way of showing it.

You have a perverse way of intentionally avoiding very important parts of an argument don't you?

I have said it before and I will say it one more time for the slower ones to understand....THEY CAN HAVE THEIR BOOKS ABOUT HOMOS IN THE LIBRARY,  THEY CAN'T DISPLAY THEM FOR KIDS TO SEE.  

What part of that don't you understand???

again what makes you the utlimate authority as to what can be displayed and not, if you had a problem with it, why didn't you inform the library staff of it? instead of being a coward and ripping it up.

Ok,  I'll make it clear,  I'm not the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, never said I was,  just a guy who has some common sense and knows the difference between right and wrong.

Displaying gay books in front of kids is wrong.  Displaying most other non pornographic material is ok,  do you understand that?  I never said the books shouldn't be available,  just not at EYE LEVEL FOR KIDS!!!!


You are either a faggot yourself or just too damn dumb to see the big picture here.  I'm guessing a bit of both.

You have made yourself the "ultimate authority" by forcing your beliefs on others.

I question your common sense as you have addressed only part of my post.

When I decide to have childern, I will decide what they read not you.

You say your doing it for the childern? What a fucking cop out (no disrespect meant to LEOs).

[i]I feel pretty
Oh, so pretty
I fell pretty and witty and gaaaaay
and I pity
any girl who is not me today![/i]

IBTmoderfokinL

Call him a Felon, eh?   besmirch his character, huh?   So, you know what jurisdiction this act was caried out in?   You know all the facts of the case in hand?  You are sounding like one of the hangman party, "lets judge him and set the sentence ourselves."

You got some pretty low expectations for your kids, or they have disabilities.   Reading is not rocket science, patience and time spent with your kid teaching them the basics and they will read, no question about it.  (unless they have a disability)

For almost all of recorded history, homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness.  Now it is PC to be queer.  Egad.  
 Sexually explicit material of ANY nature is not appropriate for children, and should not be displayed.  I may not have torn up this rag, bit I would have moved it to a high shelf and raised hell with the librarian.  There is obviously a 'gay' agenda afoot, and promoting their perverted sexuality is high priority for them.  Stick this magazine in Lil Ops face and I will ram it up your browneye, just like I would if you are slamming him with Hustler.   Ops

The Advocate is hardly porn,more like gay Newsweek.Would you get as upset about Newsweek showing a man and a women kissing and destroy it on sight, if it was in plain view of childern in a store or other public place?

[blue]"Ok, I'll make it clear, I'm not the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, never said I was, just a guy who has some common sense and knows the difference between right and wrong."[/blue]

So since when is theft and destruction of others property "right" and then boasting about it common sense?  OK some common sense, obviously not near enough.  You just think you're enough of an authority to to take it upon yourself to act the way you did and destroy the hated object, sounds like you thought (using the term lightly) you were enough authority to act unilaterally.  I'll bet you'ld flip out if some guest in your house decided to tear up stuff on the table so their kids wouldn't see it.

First of all a man and a woman kissing is perfectly normal.  Is it an appropriate kiss? Sure I woulden't have a problem with that.
Modeling appropriate affection is healthy for kids to see.


[i][blue]Images of porn kissing, grab-ass and homosexual behavior is not normal[/blue][red]/[/red][blue]appropriate.[/i][/blue]

 

WHAT YOU DID WAS A CRIME. YOU PERSONALLY DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHAT BOOKS ARE DISPLAYED WHERE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, COMPLAIN TO THE HEAD LIBRARIAN!  DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT???

I know this whole thing is obviously very hard for you (the whole thought process thing) but you really have to go back and read what you wrote here.

You are equating my private home with invited guests to a public library with all kinds of different people.  People that range from innocent kids, soccer moms, and even the homeless hang out there sometimes.  Lots of different people thats why they have lots of different subject matter at the public library.  

I have a nice variety of books and reading material here at my house but I can assure you,  anytime my friends bring their kids over,  they can be 100% certain there will be absolutely no objectionable material out where kids can see it.  That's just common courtesy don't you think?

So when some pervert sticks a book with 2 MEN playing grab ass right out in front of the kids at the library, I got pissed.  If some pervert does it again,  I will do it again.




See,  you are wrong,  I did get to decide that book didn't belong there and that's why I shit canned it.  

Sometimes this society with all of it's preaching of tolerance and other pc jargon just needs a kick in the ass.  Nobody is going to get the point by saying, "um, excuse me nice librarian, somebody put that book where it shouldn't be".  No,  when they find it in the fucking toilet ripped in half,  then they might get the point.

Again, flame away,  it is very interesting to see just how dumb a few of you are.  The more the thread goes on,  the more apparant it is that some of you have been brain washed by the "tolerance" crowd.

Just because something is "demonized" doesn't automatically legitimize it. Incest is demonized too but just because it's looked upon as disguisting makes it OK!? [>:/]

Your equating the two acts [i](owning guns vs. perverted sexual relationships)[/i] based on the scrutiny of social tides? Right and wrong is not subjective.  No matter what shifting public opinion is things that are perverted are wrong and harmful. Always has been, always will be.

I was specifically referring to lvgunner.  Based upon the facts he stated as to his specific and deliberate destruction of publicly owned property in this state would be a felony.  It might not end up that way in the end, but thats what he would be charged with.  I besmirch nothing, I simply call them as I see them based on what he has stated as fact.  Yes, had I witnessed such a crime in this state, I most certainly would arrest on a felony count.   From there, its up to the courts and his lawyer to deal with.

I correct myself only to point out the nevada law on the issue.

He only owes them $500 for his crime.

NRS 379.160 Willful detention of or damage to property of public library; penalties; liability of parent or guardian.

     1.  Any person who willfully detains any book, newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, manuscript, filmstrip or other property of any public library or reading room for more than 30 days after receipt of written notice demanding the return of any such article or property shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500.

     2.  Any person who willfully cuts, tears, defaces, breaks or injures any book, map, chart, picture, engraving, statue, coin, model, apparatus or other work of literature, art, mechanics or object of curiosity deposited in any public library or reading room shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500.

     3.  The parent or guardian of a minor who willfully and maliciously commits any acts within the scope of subsection 1 or 2 is liable for all damages so caused by the minor.

     (Added to NRS by 1957, 6; A 1965, 125; 1967, 563; 1985, 114)

See? You are too stupid to understand what you did was wrong. Too bad you didn't get caught for vandalizing the library. Maybe could have gotten a hate crime charge in there as well.

Well, I am nearly speechless.  As a librarian, I think that I have to say something in response to all of this.  

Public libraries in America are funded by taxpayers of all kinds: black, white, gay, straight, handicapped, poor, wealthy and so on.  EACH AND EVERY ONE of those tax payers has a differing opinion on every topic of the world.  Our role as librarians is not to bow down to the call of one group or another, but to allow all voices to be heard.  Even those we do not personally agree with.  

Displaying books of all kinds lets patrons of all kinds know what is available.  I am sure that the book in question that lvgunner777 destroyed was not displayed in the children's area of the library.  I am also sure that it was not intended to be prominently displayed in order to "make" America's children gay.  It was probably put there for the simple reason of having an empty spot to put it in.  It would have taken much less effort to either move the book to a higher shelf or ask the librarian to move it than it would have been to take " the book to the bathroom, rip[ped] the spine in half and threw it in the toilet."

Hiding the book in a section that is only accessible to adults is ridiculous.  In order to guarantee that no child, under any circumstances, would see a book that someone at any place, at anytime would find objectionable would be impossible.  In order to do so would mean the end of all public libraries.

Most of you have already stated what I would have in regards to the First Amendment.  But I will add this: destroying something because you think it "may" be a  threat to someone that you have no control over (other people's children) is pure and simple liberalism and against the very foundations that this great country was created upon: freedon for all, whether you agree with it or not.

Marian

[i]Do you know something special i don't?   Last time i checked, lvgunner is in nevada, not ohio.   Do you know all the laws in nevada also? Edited due to your post on the statutes in Nevada.[/i] Will you now admit you are not impartial in this instance?   You have already proven a willingness to act as a judge and assign guilt, in an area that you didn't even know the statutes.   Say all you want how this man's actions were wrong, it is plain that you are not capable of [b]impartially[/b] offering judgement on his actions.  And his actions had absolutely no bearing on you.

I am quite impartial as one can be when one admits to destroying public property.  The only difference being that nevada has a specific statute with a more lenient penalty.  The actions would be the same.  You obviously are still caught on the subject and not the act.  You were proved wrong and can't find a graceful way to stand down.

More nonsense from the clueless.  A HATE CRIME?!?!   Do you know how inane "hate crime statutes" are? they place gays or whoever is the victem on a higher pedestal than the rest of society, by making it more evil to have murdered a person. That reminds me of the guys in Texas that killed a gay man-  or something similar to that situation.   The newsies were all pushing for hate crime punsihment, and hate crime legislation.   Well, Texas showed them, didn't it?   Served them up with a plain ol murder charge, and what was that about seeking the death penalty???   Seems like the statutes work just fine without some foolish "hate crime" mumbo jumbo.

I was proved wrong?   Ok, fine, but it sure seems like you called the man a felon, when you were citing the [b] wrong state's statutes[/b] in this case.   I don't recall stating that i thought the man was right or wrong, guilty or not.   I was only commenting on your [b]proven[/b] hangman mentality.   That you are a lawman and are guilty of that should give you pause, and end all further discussion on this matter on your part.   Shame on you, lawman.

You are right about the book not being in the children's section.  However,  it was prominatley displayed in a rack right by the checkout line.  Kids have to go to that line to check out their books from the kid's section.  So in other words, it might as well been in the kiddie section because all the kids in the library that waited in line had to look at that filth.

I appreciate your input as a librarian,  it was the first dissenting post that actually made some sense.  

Just curious,  in your library,  would you prominately display a book about gay dating right by the checkout line at kid's eye level????



Shotar,  the statute that you cited states, "not more than $500" by the way.  So you are trying to play judge here aren't you?? You are trying to determine the penalty before there is even a trial??  How judgemental you are,  my goodness,  that is not right is it???  That's awful,  just awful that you would judge someone like that.  

You might not agree with what I did but before you go handing down sentences,  maybe you should look in the mirror.  Don't try to stand on a pedastal like you are above reproach.  I don't even know you yet I can guarantee you are not perfect.  Or I wouldn't be calling you Shotar, I'd be calling you God.

By the way,  you never answered the question...do you want your kids looking at 2 gays on the beach holding hands????  YES OR NO

Simple answer is no.  I also however do not wish to deprive someone of their right to read such material if that is the sort of thing that interests them.  That is what you did.  As I stated, the level of penalty would be up to the judicial system.  I can only state what the crime is based upon what you told us all that you did.  Were I the jurist involved, it would certainly be the max penalty as I believe that such willful and wanton destruction is indefensible and wrong.  While I have repeatedly stated that I don't care for the subject matter either, vandalism and stifling of free speach is inherently evil.  There are other ways to get your point accross as I also pointed out earlier.  I'm not sure how you can continually seek to justify that which is inexcuseable, but apparently your self righteousness envelopes you and shields you from reproach.  While i don't claim to be the portent of judicial outcomes I certainly can state what I would arrest for under circumstances familiar to me.  Your crime is just as shocking to me as if someone had broken into the museum, stolen the battle rifle exhibit and thrown the treasured relics into the smelter.

No shit??

Even though the rifles can't be replaced and they represent a piece of history?

Even though there are thousands of books with the same title still in print and probably still being printed???

You are warped aren't you.

So kids should be able to access this type of stuff, even if by accident?  Nope, I don't think so.  If a library wants to keep such materials, keep it away from any place kids may reach it.  That means if there's a queer mag, it doesn't get put next to Sesame Street Mag for kids.  

And "kids" whom StonerStudent claims might be interested in gay dating, still might not know if they are truly gay or not.  Why cultivate a culture of sexual deviants?  

Sodom, here we come!

I was proved wrong?   Ok, fine, but it sure seems like you called the man a felon, when you were citing the [b] wrong state's statutes[/b] in this case.   I don't recall stating that i thought the man was right or wrong, guilty or not.   I was only commenting on your [b]proven[/b] hangman mentality.   That you are a lawman and are guilty of that should give you pause, and end all further discussion on this matter on your part.   Shame on you, lawman. Still shame on you.

One aspect of this that interests me is the comparison between how many public libraries treat gun magazines and gay issue/ gay lifestyle magazines.

I have been in a number of libraries where magazines like Guns & Ammo and American Rifleman were not carried.  I have been in a public library where gun magazines were stocked, but kept behind the counter and you had to ask a librarian to see them! Of course the librarian would give you a look like you just asked to see the latest copy of Swank.

Of course all these libraries carry and display the various gay publications.

A Public Library does have a obligation to use the moral standards of it's community as a guideline in displaying material, and when choosing which material to have in its stacks.

It does seem however that the moral criteria being used to make those choices is not the moral standards of the community, but rather the (usually farleft wing) moral standards of the State University that educated the library staff.

If you see material in your library that you feel is offensive, or inappropriate for children, pick it up, take it to the counter and calmly make your point to the librarian.  Ask to speak to the most senior person working, and ask her to shelve the book in a less conspicuous location.  If you have to, you could call the local city council to complain, or write a letter to the editor of your local paper.

While I think that a good library should be inclusive of all types of material, a library shouldn't function as a liberal re-education center.  It's your library, you paid for it.

There no claim to it ....fact boys and girls.And no said it was by the Sesame Street books or in the kiddie dept ether.And you can't cultivate homosexuals,you are ether queer or you not.

Well put,  and I agree with you 100% about the library personell generally being left leaning.  It is quite obvious that it is true when they have more books and magazines on "how to be gay" than they do about guns and other wholesome topics like that.

Watch out!  Nowhere is SAFE for our children!

"Muppet Sexuality:  Are Ernie and Bert More Than Just Best Friends?"

[img]http://a.abcnews.com/media/US/images/apr_bert_ernie_020409_nh.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.gayromandie.ch/series/images/sesame%20(2).jpg[/img]




And just for good measure:

"Bert's Taliban Connection"

[img]http://a.abcnews.com/media/Entertainment/images/ho_bert_osama-011211nh.jpg[/img]



BTW, Nice ref, DF!  Great book!  I think Ray Bradbury would be rolling in his grave, if he were dead!  

Not wholesome:

[img]http://pbskids.org/teletubbies/images/intind_tinky.gif[/img]

Wholesome:

[img]http://www.vpc.org/graphics/ab10ad.jpg[/img]

Got it?

No, I did.  You may discuss YOUR experiences with YOUR library, while I will discuss mine.  In MY library, the magazines are all within a 20' wall space reaching up to about 7' high.  The library provides steps for children and adults to reach the higher magazines, but mostly, kids mags are down lower.

Motorcycle mags and other womens mags are up higher.  Gun mags are not spoken of.



I didn't claim that.  I didn't say magazines will create homos.  I said, SEXUAL DEVIANTS.  Anyone who believes that men plowing other men's asses is normal is a sexual deviant.  Humanity will not survive if only homosexuals exist.  Homosexuals, although maybe good interior designers and artists, provide nothing to the gene pool, absent a willing sperm donor or recipient.  Or unless they defraud a straight partner into such a union for a child.

However, if you want to discuss "cultivating homosexuals" one must look at the recent homosexual school in NYC, where KIDS who might still not understand themselves are going into this queer school, which might not allow them to socially develope enough to know what they are.  

Now I bring up my last point - why should a library carry a sexual lifestyle magazine?  What is the benefit of having "Out?"  If you want to put that sort of stuff in an adult section....say....where the rest of the mags and books are located on Human SEXUAL Developement, you have NO argument by me.  None, whatsoever.

HOWEVER, you put a magazine, that is PURELY sexual in nature along with other mags and don't provide hetero mags of a sexual nature and thats discrimination.  Why should we have to endure such crap?  And no, I don't believe sexual hetero mags belong there either.  Why?  Because I believe that 70% of library patrons are CHILDREN.  Yes, children MUST be protected from sexual materials, gay or straight.  It is what is decent.  It is what is MORAL.

Librarians are liberals??  Obviously you haven't been to library school with me!  Most librarians are strict constitutionalists who fight for privacy rights and free speech.  The American Library Assocation has been one of the most vocal groups to take action concerning the PATRIOT Act.  WE are the ones fighting Ashcroft and his insane desire to look at what you are reading at both the library and at the bookstore.

Now, as far as purposely putting gay magazines and books where children can see it, I would not do that, but I also would not think twice about putting it out in the adult area of the library.  

In the case of lvgunner777's situation, I think I would politely inquire about the possibility of the new book shelf being moved out of the reach of little ones if such books were going to be displayed.  There is NO NEED to destroy a book under these circumstances when there are other less dramatic ways of solving the problem that do not involve committing a crime.

AND, there are several libraries that I know of that do carry Playboy, American Rifleman, Guns and Ammo and the like.  It is when patrons such as lvgunner777 destroy or steal materials in order to censor them that we have to keep them behind the desk.  

Also, many states have "harmful to minors" laws which require Playboy and other materials like that to not be allowed in the library.  Librarians could be held legally responsible for these materials being in the hands of children IF they were deemed harmful by the courts.  Most often, it is not that we don't want materials like this out, it is that because of theft, damage and law that we cannot.

Please, before assuming that we are all out to brainwash your children into becoming gay (even if it was possible), liberal or just plain odd, remember that YOU as a parent should be mindful of what information is available to your children at all times.  We do not pretend to be your child's parent, nor do we want to.  We are providers of information and in some cases guardians of it as well.

Asking a librarian to move a book is NOT a hard thing to do and in 99 out of 100 cases, we would be more than happy to grant your request.

Marian

P.S. If you are also not happy with the selection of the materials at your library, don't just sit here and rant about it on the internet.  Find "how not to be gay" titles and suggest them to your library.  Because you all sign the checks, we usually buy what you ask for.  IF you do find those titles, I would be willing to hear what they are as they are rarely available.  Your problems stem more from what publishers are willing to print, NOT what libraries are willing to buy.

[img]http://www.bertisevil.tv/img/bertmug.gif[/img]


[img]http://www.bertisevil.tv/img/pol.jpg[/img]

Very well-written, Marian.