Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/2/2001 3:46:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 4:12:31 AM EDT by 101_proof]
[url]http://www.11alive.com/local/local_top_story.asp?storyid=8099[/url] Local News FBI Agents Arrest CNN Producer Web Producer: Sean Rowe Reported by: 11Alive Staff The FBI has arrested a CNN executive producer on charges he used the Internet to try and entice an underage girl for sex. Agents claim that Alan Audet, a 44-year-old father living in Marietta, used a chat room to develop an online relationship with a person whom he believed to be a 13-year-old girl. The FBI says Audet was actually communicating with members of its Innocent Images Task Force (IITF). Agents say Audet attempted to entice the "girl" to meet him for the purpose of having sex. Agents took him into custody on Clairmont Road in Atlanta Tuesday. Audet is charged with the use of an Interstate device to entice a minor for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity. The crime is a federal charge and carries a potential penalty of 15 years.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 4:15:04 AM EDT
Are you surprised, That is the Clinton News Network you know. Dems and perverts all the same. Lets see if any of the other left networks carry this story.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 4:19:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By full-clip: Are you surprised
View Quote
Not at all. [smoke]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 4:23:38 AM EDT
I'm not surprised. Arrest them all for TREASON!
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 4:36:26 AM EDT
Now all they gotta do is cut off his sack, and he'll be safe to release back into the general population.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 4:44:38 AM EDT
CNN Executive Producer is Doing It "To the Children." He will get out of it, they never pay for their sins.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 4:49:11 AM EDT
One less guy to make a CNN exclusive on the evils of guns! Well can you blame him for wanting something tight after his old warn out wife? [}:D]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 5:11:46 AM EDT
Audet is charged with the use of an Interstate device to entice a minor for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity.
View Quote
OK, I don't understand. He's being charged with enticing a minor when the state admits that he wasn't. He was talking to an adult agent. What BS. Sounds like same tactics the BATF uses. You are in possession of a machine gun if your rifle is malfunctioning and doubles. I'm with Oslow on the treason charge. That is something more plausable.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 5:45:22 AM EDT
Two things: 1) If he was trying to nail that girl, shame on him and rot in hell. 2) What if the 'State' wanted to nail someone, couldn't they make up a load of crap and arrest you?
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:52:24 AM EDT
Zoom, I agree. What minor was he enticing? I don't see anyone underage involved in this story. Sounds like a made-up crime or a thought-crime to me. With a generous portion of Orwellian doublespeak. I don't care if it happens to someone I don't like, or even a real scumbag, perverting the laws like that is wrong.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 7:38:43 AM EDT
Sorry guys, I beg to differ in my opinion on this one. My office conducts the same type of investigations as the one described in the news article and believe me, you have no idea of the number of perverts on the Net. We have arrested peace officers, firemen, college professors, engineers, and everything in between. These guys and girls (yes we have arrested females also) are not entrapped, they pick the topic of conversation, but when they start asking kids to take nude photos of themselves and requesting to meet for sex (very graphically described) they cross the line and they go to jail. If they do not get arrested the next person they meet may very well be a real child.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 7:55:10 AM EDT
rkb3119 I agree with you, you have to believe that if this guy turns out to be a pervert, he probably has scored many times, this time he got caught. Keep up the GOOD FIGHT, put em all in long dong prison forever. Scumbag SOBs
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 8:14:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 8:11:32 AM EDT by Magic]
I am all for putting these scumbags away as long as they aren't entrapped. When my niece was 15 years old, she "found" a long distance relationship over the net. The pervert had some kind of hold on her and her parents could not stop her from contacting him. After many attempts, they called me. They knew that I was never the soft and sweet type and I guess that my niece had communicated this to the pervert. I told my niece that if she ever contacted him again that I was going to kick her little ass. I finally got ahold of the pervert and told him that if he ever in his entire life contacted my niece that I was going to drive up to where he lived, stomp his ass flat, slowly bleed him to death and let him watch my dogs eat his body parts. I was serious and he knew it. He never contacted her again. [Edited for seplling]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 8:14:37 AM EDT
It's only a thought crime until he bends [b]your[/b] 14 year old daughter his erect memeber.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 9:06:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rkb3119: Sorry guys, I beg to differ in my opinion on this one. My office conducts the same type of investigations as the one described in the news article and believe me, you have no idea of the number of perverts on the Net. We have arrested peace officers, firemen, college professors, engineers, and everything in between. These guys and girls (yes we have arrested females also) are not entrapped, they pick the topic of conversation, but when they start asking kids to take nude photos of themselves and requesting to meet for sex (very graphically described) they cross the line and they go to jail. If they do not get arrested the next person they meet may very well be a real child.
View Quote
While I believe that people who prey on children should be arrested and punished, this man was caught doing no such thing. You can't punish someone for what they might do. It is flat out wrong. The fact of the matter is, he wasn't communicating with a child, he was communicating with an adult. This is distinctly different, by the way, from an officer attempting to buy drugs by posing as a drug user. In the latter case, the target does actually commit the crime of selling drugs (as unconstitutional as I think that is). Basically the former is charged with thinking about molesting a child. It isn't even a gray area, there is no victim. If someone does molest a child, throw the book at them, but don't arrest people for what you are pretty sure they are going to do in the future. Follow the path to it's logical conclusion and most of the people on this board will be imprisoned or hanged as traitors becasue we have black rifles and discuss what circumstances might justify armed rebellion. By your own logic, we are rebels and should be arrested and tried because we might be inclined to rebel in the future. Remember, your rights are only protected when everyone's rights are protected.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 9:23:43 AM EDT
I think Weiseguy touched on a great point. There was no actual victim, so there is no crime. Growing up, I remember when LEO's were called peace officers. They were someone you went to when you needed help. Now, LEO's are people you want to avoid, because they look into the lives of others to find a possible crime. This change has turned the day to day activity of the police from an act of protection into an inquisition. If the current rate of police turning from helpers into busy-bodies (with the right to arrest) continues, where will we be in 100 years? I will agree that if the police find proof that he has actually hurt a little girl that he should be a target at next AR shoot.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 9:38:19 AM EDT
Weiseguy, Interesting train of thought, but understandable. You must, however, keep in mind that these individuals are not limited to "thinking" about anything, if they have been arrested that they have attempted to meet, in person, what they "believe" to be a child. Is it not better to do a little preventive intervention rather than have a child suffer the consequences of being sexually abused? You must understand that these investigations entail much more than mere conversation across the Net. More than one of the individuals arrested by my office have, after arrest, been discovered to have had "real" victims before their arrest. They have in fact, "done" something and have gone unpunished........how many children do we allow to be their victims? I realize that you do not have the full picture of what takes place, but I assure you that if you did, I believe that your opinion may differ a little. As I am sure you well know, there usually much more to the story than the media tells. I also do not follow anything blindly, I will be right there with you along with my own black rifle (or two) should the need arise.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 9:47:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:04:37 AM EDT
Man is this difficult! No one should be prosecuted for a non-event but a molester should hang. When situations are cloudy I was taught to establish the simple facts and the guiding principle. The fact is the perp has not enticed a child when the person on the receiving end is an agent. The principle is no law designed to prevent crime exists without infringing on the rights of the law abiding. IMHO the only answer is real punishment for criminals (real criminals). Prison is not a punishment in my book. In times past the punishment fit the crime and I think that is the answer. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:12:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 10:09:53 AM EDT by BostonTeaParty]
If we think a man is likely to commit a crime in the future, or wanted to commit a crime, or intended to commit a crime, but has not yet committed a crime, it's outrageous to punish him for that uncommitted crime. Some of you say that he has surely committed a crime in the past. Then investigate him and bring him up on charges for those actual crimes. Don't fabricate an imaginary crime. He's not a child molestor if he hasn't molested a child. If he has, then show the jury the proof, and lock him up for life (or worse). But this incident did not involve a child. No child was hurt by what he did or even involved in any way. So how can you call that child molestation? How can you guys not see the Orwellian nature of prosecuting a man for a non-crime like this? If he's committed real crimes against real people, prosecute him for those. --Edited for clarity--
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:26:39 AM EDT
If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish and walks like a fish, then it must be a goddam fish.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:27:01 AM EDT
I think task forces such as the FBI IITf are great. They are long overdue. If any of you people who think police should take a reactive approach to internet child molesters met one or had to deal with one in person..you would change your mind.
View Quote
First of all, I haven't knowingly dealt with a child molester or seen the destructive consequences of what they have done first hand, so you may very well be right that my attitude would change if I did. But I don't think that should change the facts of the law. We shouldn't make laws based on how we feel about people. We should make them based on what is right and wrong and based on respect for the rights and liberties and personal value of others. Ultimately, I don't see how the police can be anything but reactive. It's possible they can do proactive things to discourage crime (like patrolling neighborhoods and such), but when it comes to actually arresting people and charging them with crimes, I don't see how it can be anything but reactive. You are saying that talking about molesting a child should be a crime. Let's make that clear. You are saying that [b]talking[/b] about molesting a child should be a crime. We are not talking about actual child molestation here or the solicitation of an actual child. You want to put a man in jail for his desires, not for his actions. Once we start arresting people for merely talking about committing crimes, we have crossed a very dangerous line. If we do that, we become a society where the police can imprison whomever they want, because they no longer have to "react" to actual events.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:38:59 AM EDT
I think some of you don't really understand what happens in these types of cases involving adults who lure or attempt to lure children over the Internet. They do much more than "talk" about what they want to do. They communicate with a child or what is believed to be a child (the same under the law) about engaging in explicit sexual conduct. They sometimes send pornographic images or images of child pornogrpahy. They travel long distances to meet the "victim". They rent hotel rooms prior to meetings. They bring special presents for their "victim", such as condoms, dildos, lubricants, handcuffs, guns, ropes, video cameras, digital cameras, and child pornography. Believe me I've seen it all and more. Gee if you were talking about kiling the President or robbing a bank, and did all the planning these guys did you might go to jail too.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:44:09 AM EDT
I agree with the guy above me here.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:47:23 AM EDT
Child Molesting is bad period. here is what they do ...they have a female officer who looks 13 (and I work with one that does )when a parent reports a person having relations over the internet with the child they set up a meeting it is with this officer not the child. the moment the person makes any sexual act or fawndals the officer the person is arrested. because he belives it to be a 13 or 14 yr old if it was your child he'd be "DOING" her he should be arrested IMHO
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:49:11 AM EDT
Jdm0325, I won't disagree that this guy is probably one sick bastard. And by "talk", I didn't mean to include only speaking words. We let people carry on all sorts of disgusting sexual behaviors as long as they don't hurt anyone else. That's the distinction I intended to make. This man did not hurt a child. If someone hurts a child, they should be punished severely. But no one is alleging that this man actually hurt anyone. That is what a crime ultimately is--hurting someone else. BTW, I have a hard time with the law against talking about killing the President, too, on the same grounds.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:54:32 AM EDT
here is what they do ...they have a female officer who looks 13 (and I work with one that does )when a parent reports a person having relations over the internet with the child they set up a meeting it is with this officer not the child. the moment the person makes any sexual act or fawndals the officer the person is arrested.
View Quote
In the example you give, I would be perfectly okay with arresting the individual for the proposition they made to the (actual) child over the Internet. That's harmful to the child and the offender should be punished. But I have a problem with arresting them for meeting with an adult they believe is a child. That's all some staged incident and no child is involved, therefore there is no crime against a child.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 11:19:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 11:38:58 AM EDT by cnatra]
Without question anyone who preys on children should be executed!! BUT this whole concept on arresting someone becuase the person may commit a crime is very Orwellian & the liberals love it. We're all "potential" criminals so maybe we should all be locked up. The possiblity is there that I MAY commit a heinous act with a 3400lb car but until I commit such an act I'm not guilty of anything & should not be treated as if I am. I try to use this analogy with the anti-gun crowd & they don't like it. A convicted child molester (in Ohio I think) was recently arrested & thrown back in jail for a parole violation. It was discovered by his parole officer the the ex-con had a journal he kept in which he wrote down all his perverted pedophile fantasy's. Well the court & prosecuters determined that this journal was child pornography & therefore the man was convicted once again for being in possesion of child pornography. So this was essentially this mans sick & twisted thoughts written down in a journal & he was thrown in jail for it. I don't condone what he did in his past BUT those sick & twisted thoughts are just that, thoughts!! Whether those thoughts are in his head or on a piece of paper in his handwriting there are his thoughts & he was thrown in jail for them. Where is the criminal act? I just thought about speeding the other day, should I be given a speeding ticket? I thought about stealing a donut from the bakery, throw me in jail! Hello! Orwellian thought police or what?!? I'm not trying to bash Stephen King but he writes some weird books describing people committing murder. (only famous one I can think of , I'm sure there's others) Any number of novelist's or screenwriters create all kinds of fiction with some demented & violent content. Where does one draw the line?
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 11:26:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 11:26:19 AM EDT by Sixtus]
The FBI says Audet was actually communicating with members of its Innocent Images Task Force (IITF). Agents say Audet attempted to entice the "girl" to meet him for the purpose of having sex. Agents took him into custody on Clairmont Road in Atlanta Tuesday. Audet is charged with the use of an Interstate device to entice a minor for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity. I believe these police officers have enough experience and evidence to make a good bust. Some crimes deserve special treatment and considerations,we can't wait for a child to be raped and than gather evidence. The lives of Americas children have to protected. This guy made calls to what he believed to be a 13 year old, he is not some innocent citizen falsley accused, and he still has all his Constitutional rights, all that his liberal money can buy.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 11:38:50 AM EDT
Some crimes deserve special treatment and considerations,we can't wait for a child to be raped and than gather evidence.
View Quote
That's not what I'm saying. If you think it is, then you misunderstand me. If he propositions an actual child over the Internet, or comes to his or her house to proposition the child, then he's committed a crime. There's a lot we can do rather than just waiting around until a child is molested. It seems to me that analagous situation would be for murder, which is a pretty serious crime, maybe or maybe not at exactly the same level as child molestation, but certainly not that far off. You seem to be saying that a man should be put in prison for saying that he hates this guy and wants to kill him. I say that if he trespasses on his property, or assaults him, or brandishes a weapon at him, he should be punished. And yes, unfortunately, if he kills him, he should be punished, too. But he can't be punished for thinking or talking about a potential crime. Preventative measures, by the government, are inherently dangerous.
This guy made calls to a 13 year old, he is not some innocent citizen falsley accused
View Quote
If he did that, and I'm assuming a sexual content to these calls, then he should be charged for that, not for sexual conversations and propositions to an adult masquerading as a child. If he didn't do that, then he is an innocent citizen.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 11:44:36 AM EDT
One thing I wanted to add. Most of you who are defending the FBI's actions here are doing it by saying that this guy is also this or that, that's he disgusting in some other way in addition to what he's being charged with. None of you are willing to argue on the basis only of what he is being charged with. If you think those other things are criminal, then argue that he should be charged with crimes for them. But don't argue that he should be charged for a crime for one thing because he is disgusting or harmful in other things. I'm sure there's a Latin name for that sort of debate, but I don't happen to know it.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 1:02:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By burn: Child Molesting is bad period.
View Quote
Yeah, so? Murder is bad, but we allow people to own weapons and talk about them. And 99% of the people on this board have probably said, at one time or another, something like "man, I was so pissed, I could've killed that bastard."
here is what they do ...they have a female officer who looks 13 (and I work with one that does)
View Quote
Mmm-kay. And I dated (and f*cked) a 22-year-old who looked like she was 12. We even emailed dirty over the university's computer system. How many felonies would you say I committed?
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 2:30:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 2:39:51 PM EDT
Nobody wants to see the police arrest someone for their thoughts. I look at this as criminal intent, whether or not the woman on the other end of the phone was 13 years old, his expectations were she was. He knowingly did something that he knew was very wrong. This is not a thought crime, he acted on his perverted thoughts,he made contact for the sole purpose of having sex with her. There has to be more to this story, the police are not going to give all the details. I'm just saying that when a childs welfare and life may be in jeopardy, we use the narrowest interpretation of the law.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 2:56:33 PM EDT
If the government wants to really cut down on child molesting by the use of internet, they should shut down AOL, that is where many children and child molestors hang out. SHUT DOWN AOL FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN. AOL sucks anyway.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 5:13:35 PM EDT
Sixtus..............You hit the nail right on the head, I am glad to see that someone gets the point. The guy INTENDED to molest a child, luckily there was not one available. Actually, when arrested by my office they are charged with Criminal Attempt at whatever the appropriate offense is, child molestation, aggravated child molestation, or whatever. They cannot be charged with the actual offense since the offense itself was not committed. If the pervert set the meeting, described what he or she wanted to do, drives, flies, or whatever to the meeting place at the agreed upon time then I would think he has made an attempt, yes?
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 5:34:50 PM EDT
Well all of those concerned about perverts rights being violated and being charged with these types crimes can blame the Congress and your local law makers. They are the ones who recognize these type laws are needed to protect children. Dont blame the Cops for doing their jobs.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 5:52:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Striker: Some of you people are losing sight of the [b]fact[/b] this piece of shit was communicating and enticing what he believed to be a 13 year old child. The fact it was a police officer is irrelevant. The end justifies the means. He knew what he was doing. Do you think he would have carried on those conversations had he known it was a police officer? I'm assuming that the clairmont road in Atlanta was the sight of their "meet". [b]REASONABLE & PROBABLE GROUNDS[/b]. That is all we need to arrest someone. What is the difference between this and setting up a drug sting? People harp and harp about police not doing enough to stop crime..not being there when you need them..etc..etc. Well for some children in Georgia..they were there in time. I hope he rots in hell if he is guilty.
View Quote
[b] Thank You Striker!, exactly on target![/b]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 5:53:55 PM EDT
For those who know that I work at CNN, no, it wasn't me. [:)>]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 5:58:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CIB: Now all they gotta do is cut off his sack, and he'll be safe to release back into the general population.
View Quote
That was gonna be my response to the reparations issue.[:D]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:01:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By darin2: Well all of those concerned about perverts rights being violated and being charged with these types crimes can blame the Congress and your local law makers. They are the ones who recognize these type laws are needed to protect children. Dont blame the Cops for doing their jobs.
View Quote
Darin, I have to disagree with you contention that police are absolved of blame because they are doing their job. The whole idea of having multiple branches of government is that each branch is a check on the powers of the others. To deprive a man of his freedom requires the complicity of all three branches. The legislature must pass a law, the police (executive) must arrest the man for violating it, and the judicial branch must convict him. Any branch is free to check the power of the others by electing not to perform their function in that case. If a man is deprived of his freedom for an unjust law, there is plenty of blame for everyone. The legislature is properly condemned for passing the unjust law. The police are equally culpable for arresting the man for breaking an unjust law. And the judicial branch is to be blamed for convicting him. No one gets to plead that it isn't their fault, because it is. They all willfully collaborated to punish someone under an unjust law. The police are not meant to enforce unjust laws, and the courts are not meant to convict people for them either. If the mere passage of a law absolutely compels the other two branches to act, then the peoples rights are not protected in the manner that the founders intended.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:01:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: This man did not hurt a child. If someone hurts a child, they should be punished severely. But no one is alleging that this man actually hurt anyone. That is what a crime ultimately is--hurting someone else. BTW, I have a hard time with the law against talking about killing the President, too, on the same grounds.
View Quote
The only reason this man did not hurt a child is because the 'child' turned out to be an agent. This old 'entrapment' cry is bogus. If you do or try to do something wrong or illegal and you are 'entrapped', it is still your decision and your responsibilty. You made the decision. It seems that a lot of people who talk about the lack of people being responsible for their own actions is deplorable, are quick to take up for a scumbag who would have molested a child if he had not been nailed, because he was 'entrapped'.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:07:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: But I have a problem with arresting them for meeting with an adult they believe is a child. That's all some staged incident and no child is involved, therefore there is no crime against a child.
View Quote
You are kidding, right? This scumbag BELIEVED that he was about to have sex with a child, he had all the INTENTIONS in the world to do so. He is responsible for his own actions, as many of you are fond of saying. The ONLY reason this creep did not have sex with a child was that the child was really a cop. In fact, if this had really been a young girl, he would have had sex with her. WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE DEFENDING THIS CREEP????? With all the rights that everyone loves to talk about and all the moaning about his rights, we forget one thing. With those rights come certain responsiblities.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:13:21 PM EDT
Yeah, so? Murder is bad, but we allow people to own weapons and talk about them. And 99% of the people on this board have probably said, at one time or another, something like "man, I was so pissed, I could've killed that bastard."
View Quote
Very good point. Look, the thing that pisses me off is the Law Enforcement is forcing its way into private lives. This potential "child molester" may be a sicko, but his victim was [i]imaginary.[/i] A de facto train of thought is being used. The FBI should try not to [b]entice[/b] people to do bad things (i.e.; persuading a man to saw off some shotguns, then kill his family), but trying to catch these sickos in the act. Watch him when he is in contact with a [i]real[/i] 13 year old. Law enforcement has gotten so good at real criminals, they are making new ones for their disposal. And Striker...leave your damn Canadian opinions out of this [:D].
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:15:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:18:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:21:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 6:17:43 PM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By stubbs: The FBI should try not to [b]entice[/b] people to do bad things (i.e.; persuading a man to saw off some shotguns, then kill his family), but trying to catch these sickos in the act. Watch him when he is in contact with a [i]real[/i] 13 year old.
View Quote
Whether the FBI entices you or not, you still make the final decision as to whether to commit the crime or not and in this case it was clearly criminal intent. We on this board like to talk about people being responsible for their own actions, but then some take up for a creep like this who believed that he was going to have sex with a 13 year old and would have happily gone through with it if it had not been a sting. There have been too many times when creeps like this have been with 13 year olds and not been caught. Bemoaning government intrusion is inappropriate in this case. This was not a case of them trying to entrap someone who wasn't aware that what he was doing was illegal. Besides, this is an anti-gun creep, let him burn in hell.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:21:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By darin2: Well all of those concerned about perverts rights being violated and being charged with these types crimes can blame the Congress and your local law makers. They are the ones who recognize these type laws are needed to protect children. Dont blame the Cops for doing their jobs.
View Quote
BTW, I am concerned with the violation of anyone's rights. Concerning oneself with the rights of "good" people is as pointless as concerning oneself with the right to speak nice thoughts. No one's right to say nice things is ever questioned. Even in China they have the right to say nice things, and "good" people aren't subject to arrest. The whole idea of rights is that they are honored even when there is a significant cost to do so. Sometimes the pervert does have to go free, and sometimes you will have to endure being described as a nigger or a honky or a kike or whatever other hurtful expression applies. If we can't accept these things then we are not prepared to accept the price of freedom. The rights of perverts should be of special interest to gun owners because pervert is a brush that liberals often use to tar us with.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:25:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Weiseguy: The rights of perverts should be of special interest to gun owners because pervert is a brush that liberals often use to tar us with.
View Quote
NOT FUCKING HARDLY!!!! This asshole had every intent to have sex with a 13 year old. Even the most ardent gun control nut would not make this comparison. I have been called a lunatic, a gun nut, and a fanatic, but pervert is not one I've heard.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:26:52 PM EDT
OK guys This morning in our clinic I saw a 6 year old girl.She had been brought in by her Mom because of "bumps" on her privates.They were genital warts,from sexual contact.DPS and PD involved in a bit and turns out it was a middle aged uncle.He needs his nuts cut off and to be in prison as some dude's girl. This CNN guy should be punished
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 6:32:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jdm0325: They bring special presents for their "victim", such as condoms, dildos, lubricants, handcuffs, guns
View Quote
I might let one of you guys fondle me if you gave me a gun. [}:D]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top