Scipio,

I don't require any lecture from you as to what my "Rights" are.  I do not need you or any panel of lawyers who were appointed and confirmed to lifetime positions of authority solely to further the political ambitions of one ideology over another, to interpret my Rights as enumerated in the Constitution for me.  

Pornography and alcohol are not the subject of this debate, but I will once again lower myself to your league.  If the parents are doing their job properly, their children would not have access to porn or alcohol without the parents knowledge.  

We as a society have become lazy and complacent in our duties as parents.  The socialist agenda that has created generations of welfare dependant families has become so large it intrudes into every aspect of our personal lives.  Generations have been lost to the dogma of more government is good, just sit back, relax and let the nice government man take care of your daily needs.  Here is your welfare check, your food stamps, and your low cost tax subsidized hovel to exist in.  Don't worry about your rights, we will explain your remaining rights to you.  Don't worry about your children, we know how to raise them better than you do.  Just follow our rules and everything will be just fine.  Stop thinking those thoughts, they are a menace to society.  We have to change your way of thinking since you are obviously uneducated and incapable of determining right from wrong.  

"You don't know me from shit"....Touché counselor, you are correct!  I'm here in Austin.  If you would like, I am open to meeting you face to face in order to be able to differentiate you from shit.  You might find I'm not quite as big of an unintelligent asshole idiot as you think I am as well.

What I am though, and this is gospel, is a loyal citizen of the United States.  A firm believer in the Constitution, who is sickened by the actions of a government that has nothing better to do then rob me of my earnings, and micro manage every aspect of my life.

Semper Fi

Again, many posts show a lack of any substantive knowledge of what rights are and who has them...  I respect opinions, but when they are consistantly given as fact it grows frustrating.  

--First off, I have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. This right also applies to my children. Maybe you can help me out here, but I can't find anything in the Constitution of the United States of America that grants the government the right to decide what is or is not appropriate for my children. So, being the scholar you are, you know that any right not expressly granted to the government is forbidden for it to tread on. If you can in any way dispute this "fact" then please cite a source or forever hold your peace.

Ponyboy, you talk about consequences... isn't that what the purpose of law making is for?  

--Yes, but if you keep up your diatribe of "for the children" there will soon be legal consequences for anything that anyone does because it could somehow influence children to do something that somebody somewhere doesn't like.

To create a system in which there are real consequences for our actions?  Furthermore, again you talk about our freedoms, but clearly don't know what our freedoms really are.  

--Clearly the word freedom has completely different meaning to both you and I. Obviously, I hold it in much higher regard than you do, however I would like to be able to see where you are comming from...What does the word freedom mean to you?

"Children have rights too"  yes they do, but not the same rights as adults... there is clearly a different standard and 1st amendment rights as applied to children are much more restrained than as applied to adults.

--So you think it is your place to decide where a childs rights stop when compared to an adult? How did you gain such great insight to have the ability to decide where a childs rights stop better than their parents? I am truly interested in your credentials.

(cont)

I'm not here to "cuddle" anybody, I believe in people taking responsibility for themselves... but in todays fast past society, many parents don't have time to teach right from wrong, so they have the tv and the media do it for them...and the purpose of this law, which as I've stated I dont agree with 100% is to do more than inconvenience people.  You guys are very narrow minded and short sighted if you cannot percieve that prolonged exposure to gross acts of violnce in which children are rewarded for killing the most amount of people has no effects on the way they see the world around them.  

--Whoa now...talk about short sightedness. Society may change, but times do not. This is a very violent world, we are surrounded by violence everyday. Although not nearly as much as say 100 years ago, when children regularly helped raise animal from birth/hatching until it was time to put them on the table and which point they would help kill/gut/clean/butcher the meat, which is a very violent process. There were no laws about letting children help do things like that. Are you telling me that playing a video game that is obviously not real is more violent than chopping chickens heads off and watching them run around the yard squirting blood everywhere for 5 minutes? What laws are you going to promote next, maybe disallowing anyone under 21 to hunt since many things you see during a routine hunting trip is a million times more violent than the best video game out there? Again you state that the parents don't have time to raise their children, so you think we need to make some more laws that proactively stop someone (a child) from possibly committing a crime sometime in the future, though this may only affect 1/100 of 1% of all children and still to this day cannot be proven? Sounds like good reasoning there to me. Actually I lied, it sounds like a bunch of liberal feel good bullshit.

I'm helping to write a scholarly article that will help promote intelligent discussion and debate on this issue... obviously I was wrong when I thought AR15.com might be a forum where we could all have some intelligent and productive discussion on the issue of the effects of violence on children.

--Obviously you were wrong, and it doesn't surprise me. You should have known better than to come here asking for opinions on a subject that you should have known would be very inflammatory to people who RESPECT the word freedom and detest the current levels of govt intrusion already and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any more. Especially since judging by your attitude, you think that everyone should agree with you and what you are doing and anyone that doesn't is just not as smart as you or doesn't understand key definitions of words you keep using. Next time you feel like posting something similar you might try www.crybaby-savethechildren-democrats.org, I think you might find the response you are looking for there.

Michael

[b]Yep, you're a hippo.[/b]
I'm totaly inclind to agree with SGB all the way. Those marines know what its all about.

Jesus, some of you guys aren't very supportive.  People insist on catching more flies with shit than honey.  I know where you're coming from Scipio, and I feel your pain...

...but don't think that I'm on your side on the issue.  Here's the deal, Scipio:

If you follow through with this report, even if it's a situation that is a "do it or go home", you will be a Hypocrite, yes.  By the way, I absolutely [b]HATE[/b] hypocrites, but I'm not going to stoop so low to call you "stupid, ignorant, conceited, extremist", etc.  In fact, I commend you for volunteering to write the article - it gives you a chance to brush up on some research (most of which people here, unlike myself, haven't dont in the process of bashing you).  This is why I'm urging you to find whatever you can on this topic, and take a "fair and balanced" approach to it.  If you don't, then you're throwing your morals, values, beliefs, and opinions out the window - what's worse, to help pass some legislature that would nullify all of that.  

I realize you want to dig deep and find out the root of violence in contemporary American children, but done so without any second side to the story (i.e. the beneficial effect of parents vs. legislature) would be hypocritical and distasteful.  I urge you to take every word you write in this article with a personal grain of salt.  If you say "those Columbine kids learned from Counter-Strike and Rogue Spear how to viciously kill their fellow students", then you DAMN WELL better make a supportive, opposing comment to fight it.  Cmon, you know as well as I do that, as I previously said, this piece of legislature would be futile, time-consuming, and money-wasting.  Don't buckle down by some leftist, ignorant Senatore - go with your gut, do your homework, and refuse to do this report, as it would be detrimental to both your research and your personal opinions.

In other words, don't make someone like me become very angry at the logical fallacies some guy - ultimately on my side of the battle - decided to write down on paper to kiss up to Senator for some cash.  I [i]strongly suggest[/i] that, for the good of your dignity and pride, you not follow through in such blasphemy no matter how much money you're getting in the process.

I always did like honey more than shit...
[brown]Evil Jewbroni~[/brown]

Your report should consist of one sentence:

[B]They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin,1706-1790 [/B]

Geeesshh.....my kids grew up playing video games, and now all they want to do is shoot my rifles and pistols and shotguns......i just can`t figure out what the hell is wrong with them??????.......[shotgun]

Post from Garand Shooter -
Regarding Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) -

The rules are there for ALL the parties, so quit yer bitchin' or help change the rules!

Why so long to accomplish Jack Sh*t? -

Sorry, my bad, but out of all the thousands of statewide elected officeholders, THERE IS ONLY ONE?

ONE? And you can say 'we're off to a good start'?  HELL, Man, I voted for Harry Browne for President back in 1976! 19-f***ing-76!

This is a 'good start'?????  I'm certainly glad that the 'Reagan Revolution' didn't get off to an equally good start, or we'd still be waiting for that first Tax Cut, the 600-ship Navy, and for Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that Wall!!!

Regarding Ron Paul's support of Bush in 2000-

Wait, I thought only asinine ballot laws kept Ron Paul from running as a Libertarian. Maybe not? Huh?

Regarding the Republican Party's 'good start'-

So it's all those rascally Republicans who have caused us all these problems? Yeah, right!

If anyone's stood in front of the complete disarmament of the American people for the last seventy-odd years, it's been the Republican Party.  

While the Libertarian Party has been fuming and fussing over the quality of their bong water[:D], it has been the GOP who voted overwhelmingly against the Clinton gun-grabs in the 1990s.

And about 'unlimited immigration'? -

Once again the classic Libertarian b.s. 'When we get rid...' Yeah, right! It was the Republicans who got welfare reform through, and when and if there is more welfare reform passed, it will be the Republicans who do it!

And by 'everyone else' you mean to say 'foreign nationals', if they can benefit from US, should be able to move here without any hindrances or limitations whatsoever?  Are ya'll crazy?

That's not sovereignty as our Founding Fathers envisioned it, that is some kind of globalism
bulls**t that I'm certain the UN would soundly approve!

I can just hear the Libertarians (mimicking the clear voice of Pres. Reagan) crying out 'Mr. Bush, tear down your border checkpoints.'

Control of its own borders is probably the most essential aspect of a nation's sovereignty. It, however, must take a position behind what is best for the nation from an economic viewpoint.

Wow, and I thought I was Libertarian to some degree.  As you have explained it, I want nothing to do with this cockamamy philosophy.

Eric The(ButYou'llStillLetMeDoBrainSurgery?)Hun[>]:)]

So it's actually a law to regulate industry?  Kinda like the whole reason for the ATF?  
So, some 18 year old kid working at Wal-mart is going to get the wrong end of this law because some snot nosed punk has bad parents?
Now look at your hypocrisy -- "I believe in people taking responsibility for themselves" ... "many parents don't have time to teach right from wrong."  You are scary.
Why don't you spell out the purpose of this law in your eyes?
In my eyes, it's government punishing a 3rd party for bad parenting.  Where is your belief in culpability going to fit into your support of this law?

Still waiting on those links to the "well documented" tie between fantasy violence and killer aptitude.

I only read a few of the replies to your ORIGINAL post, but YES you ARE a hippo....

This is NO different than me sellin my sister, and you can go tell Jeffords/McCain I said so...

Just because the Senator is a Republican means SQUAT...S/He is probably a cross dresser too...

I cannot believe you asked US if this was hypocracy on your part...IF I go to Kmart, tommorow, and buy Rosie towels, is THAT hypocritical??? HELL YES.... I think you asked a question you KNEW the answer to, and from the first page, got a lil pissed when someone showed you the door(or their proverbial ass)...



IF one cant stand the truth, they do NOT deserve freedom.....

To answer your question, yes, I feel you are a hypocrite.

I am tired of legislators trying to protect everyone from themselves.  I am tired of the government trying to help myself and others raise their children.  

You want to take something away from kids that you enjoyed yourself!  Read that again, and again.

You are doing a favor for someone who can help further your career?  Where I am from you are known as a whore.  

DPeacher -

POWER DOWN there buddy.

You make good points, but you convey them with insults and personal attacks.

Check the code of conduct for this forum. That stuff is NOT allowed.

A good discussion could very well break out here, but NOT if you insist on using inflammatory language.

My next step as Mod will be NOT to lock this topic, but to can your account. Don't make me do it. I've read a few of your posts in other threads - all good.

Find a way to say what you gotta say without filleting people.

thanks.

MUFTI: ordinary dress as distinguished from that denoting an occupation or station ; especially : civilian clothes when worn by a person in the armed forces.

YES, i believe you are being hypocrittical.
because: you said that you played violent games, and supposedly turned out ok - yet you are also saying that children of today are incapable of the same.

you say that parents of today don't have time to raise their children, and that government intervention is the answer: BAD idea! parents of today need to slow the hell down, and raise their own children, or realize that they won't have time to, and therefore they shouldn't have children at all.

questions for you: who wrote these "truthfull" reports that you base your findings on? what were their motivations for publishing these reports? who provided funding?

i have found information to be worth only as much as the opinions of its financial backing!

So...we're doing this for the children, right?  Just what proof are you offering that these games are leading to violent behavior in our children.  I would think that anyone who can go out and hurt another person for enjoyment has been exposed to much worse things than violent imagery in a computer game.

Yes.  I do believe it makes you a hypocrite.   That in and of itself is not nearly as bad as the fact that you are willing to help pass more legislation that do not help society, that draws attention away from the real problems in our society today and will probably contribute to oppression of many a law abiding citizen.  What makes it worse than some of the other misguided liberals is that you are willing to do this purely for self centered reasons and not misguided benevolence.

I hope this explains why many here have taken this issue in less than amiable fashion.

look out, here comes garandman the preacherman!! you single out DPreacher, yet his comments are really no worse than the SIMILAR comments mde by several others who have posted on this thread. I guess its a personal selective process though. anyway, while im here i may as well as that Scipio is a huge hippo!!! This is worthless legislation. If it were passed into law, it would end up like most others, unenforced. If you want to help society, push for longer and more consistent sentencing for violent and multiple offenders. You can create all the accountability you want, but when you can commit MURDER or RAPE and be back on the streets in 2 years OR LESS, there is something terribly wrong. Focus on the here and now instead of the "maybe" fantasy. Do you want to know why society has become more violent?? Its because the population is rising and we have a lot more people living in smaller areas than say, 100 years ago. Im sure that there is a direct corelation between the rise of the pop and the increase of crime. Why does it seem like its gotten worse in the last 30yrs?? The media. The media loves to glamorize crime and criminals. Its how they make their money. Hell, most criminals get better media support and better lawyers than the victims do. Dont believe me? Prove me wrong. The media turns the ciminal into the victim. Instead of handing out strong punishments to fit the crime, they get reduced sentences because daddy was an alcoholic and mommy was never home. I have a FORMER friend that killed his girlfriends 4 year old boy. He only got 4years, hell be out in 2. You tell me how that protects "the childern". oh, btw he is an avid gamer, that must be the problem.

And as for your VAST knowledge of OUR rights and freedoms, to hell with you. You can call us ignorant all you want but everyone has thier own idea of freedom. Thats what makes, ehm excuse me, made this country great. The idea of freedom and what it meant to the people who came here. You can say youre a expert at interpreting our "rights" but I can garauntee that someone holier than tou has a completely different interpretation. Our rights and freedoms mean different things to different people, thats why we have different political parties, or were you absent for school that day.

oh, and we're ALL still waiting on this report tying video games to violence. I want to read it myself.

Well, if you MUST know, I "singled out" DPeacher for the following reasons -

1. He "lit the match" that started the conflagration.

2. He made good valid points, but "disqualified" them with violations of the Code of Conduct.

3. If I cited EVERY violation on the forum, someone would come along with some inane comment about me...something like, oh, I don't know...something like..."preacherman" or something. [rolleyes]

ok ok, sorry for the preacherman thing. [8)]

Listen all, I'm not here to defend this piece of legislation!  As far as the title of the post, yes, I picked it because I knew that it would get interest and cause many to read the post.  I was expecting everybody to call me a hipocrit, but I wasn't expecting to be attacked personally by 3/4 of the people who responded.

The only reason that I might possibly support legislation in this area is because of my conservative views on issues of social politics.  I don't think that children should wantonly be exposed to obscenity for the same reasons that maybe they shouldn't be exposed to gross acts of man on man violence.  However, I am certainly anti-big government and against any infringment of constitutional rights.  What people seem to be having a problem with is that many really don't understand that Constitutional rights are finite in our legal system today... now you can stand there and say that that is not the way our forefathers meant it to be and I might agree with that, but that is not the way things work today... First Amendment freedoms are limited in certain ways whether you like it or not, and for better or for worse.  You can only argue within the given system...denying the truth of the presnt state of things will get you nowhere fast.  The article I am helping to write is looking at both sides of the coin, and looking at the positives and negatives of legislation in this area and is not making any conclusions... like I said before, its an academic article...

Furthermore, I love how some seem to blindly follow what a select few say, simply because those few have served in the Marine Corps.  I went to VMI myself and yes, I was Marine Corps. option... But I don't go around belittling others simply because I have a service record that makes me more "American" than others...  I don't have a problem with critisism, afterall, "critisism from a wise man, is better than praise from a fool,"  Unfortunately for the truly interested few, much of the critisim here is neither constructive, nor wise...  

look, im sorry things got a lot worse than you wanted from this thread, but do you HONESTLY think this legislation will make a difference?? If so, please, by all means, explain how this is good. And, hypothetically, if this were enacted, what kinds of games would be addressed? If you get the right person, or wrong person, im sure you could find violence in ANY video game. Where would it stop?? Is it going to cover all media or only video games? If not, why not?? dont you think its odd that a 15 cant go to the theater to see an R-rated movie, but they can go to Best Buy and get all the movies they want. Why are video games being singled out?? Just curious.

Scipio -

Let me take a crack at this one.

I too MORALLY object to obscenity, wanton violence and the like especially when it is INTENTIONALLY fed to children. I do so from a religious point of view. I also find it particularly hypocritical for the Hollywood types to blame guns, all the while cashing royalty checks from gun-violence based video games. It makes me want to "hurt" them in their pocketbook via legislation.

However, this would be wrong.

The mentality that would legislate against video games today would draft legislation against guns tomorrow.

You MUST understand the problem with this kneejerk type of legislation.

Video game based crimes grab HUGE headlines, but are a miniscule part of actual crime stats.

This type of thinking CREATES crimes where no crime exists. Take cell phones. They are trying to pass a law where use while driving is illegal. I don't own a cell phone, and I wish people would shut up and drive. But UNTIL someone is actually injured by a driver distracted by a cell phone, NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

WHEN a crime HAS been committed, then PUNISH the gulity. These video game killers are coddled and babied and petted, even AFTEr they commit a crime. Punish THEM - DO NOT create ANOTHER crime in a so-called attempt to prevent a crime.

Gov't IS NOT the anwer to every problem man has. When it tries to be such, it invariably harms people under the guise of trying to help.

Violent video games are being singled out because they are interactive...  And for any video game to be included into the category, and thus not protected by the first amendment, they would have to fit into a modified test for obscenity as the Supreme Court has established in Roth v. U.S. and Miller v. California...  N.Y., which is the state at issue here, actually does have "harmful to minors" legislation on the books... therefore, this category of speech that is not protected by the first amendment could conceivably be used to get the legislation passed...  There are many legal issues involved here that the layman would not be aware of that I can't really get into now while I'm at work, but if people are "really" and genuinely interested, I will address them as best I can later...I've said it 1,000 times... the law, especially in this area is very grey... its not black and white in the least... people seem to think that the answers to these LEGAL questions are clear and obvious... its not that simple... i wish it was.

AMEN TO THAT!! (no pun or anything intended) The government seems to want to make criminals out of everyone these days. If you want to address violence, the greatest influence these days is that damned RAP crap (not worthy of being called music). Everyday im out i hear people blasting music about doing drive-bys and how cool it is to 'bang' as many hoes as possible all while smokin a fat rock. I think the music industry has more of a stake in our young than the gaming industry. They glorify violence, and turn our daughters into whores (brittney spears, ie) more than video games ever could, and the music is everywhere you go, on the radio, on tv, in our schools. Unfortunatly, I am also a firm believer in the 1st Amendment. nuff said.

"There are many legal issues involved here that the layman would not be aware of that I can't really get into now while I'm at work, but if people are "really" and genuinely interested, I will address them as best I can later"

I, being an avid gamer myself, would be very interested in both the laws and the screening process to be followed, as well as how this obscenity test was modified to cover interactive games. I want to see what criteria will be used to determine what is harmful to 'the children'. I am, as you put it, "genuinely interested".

Sorry Scripio, you are a hypocrite.  I think many of us made TV "interactive" when we were younger, by blasting bad guys on tv with our toy guns.  I play Rogue Spear, but I don't let my kids watch me play.  That's my choice, not the governments!
guns762

Post from Garand Shooter -

Who says I need to be doing anything about a problem that I don't think exists? But I heartily applaud YOUR efforts to bring about a change in the laws that YOU desire.

Regarding number of statewide elected officials-

I believe that the Libertarian Party would have that number pasted all over its website if it were more than one, or a few.

The issue remains that the Libertarian Party is NOT creating a 'Reagan Revolution' groundswell of support among the voters.  

Events are moving much too quickly in this land and we simply do not have the luxury of time in this struggle for preservation of our rights.

Regarding whether Browne could even get on the ballot in Texas -

Could be that the Libertarian Party IS on the ballot in Texas, could be that George W. got a whopping 3,796,850 votes compared to 23,166 for Browne (but this, after all, is Bush's home state).

BUSH won 59% of the vote in Texas and 56% of the vote in North Carolina, so my hat's off to the good citizenry of the Tarheel State! YeeHa!

Regarding local officials of the Libertarian party -

I'm not particularly worried about my daily life, I'm a [u]fundamentalist[/u] Christian with my eye firmly cast on the next world.  The powers that be in Washington DC, however, do have me greatly concerned.

Regarding the Republican Party's 'good start'-

I would imagine that there are several millions of Americans of African heritage, who would think that they are a helluva' lot more free today because of the Republican Party in 1856.

Regarding John McCain -

How do you figure that, pray tell?  If the GOP supported McCain, he'd be President today (or in the mental ward at Bethsaida Naval Hospital).

Regarding unlimited immigration -

Not at all, I'm an attorney and my profession has always managed to make itself absolutely necessary to the free market economy.[:D] Not that I'm always proud of my profession, but it does take away that arrow from your quiver.

No, I'm thinking about all the other folks out there whose grandfathers, fathers, brothers, and maybe they themselves fought at Belleau Wood, the Ardennes, Khe Sahn, and on and on, who have been standing in line waiting for their chance, only to see someone slip in line ahead of them.

We owe a duty to present-day Americans first.
The days of the wide-open frontiers are long gone. You don't reckon the 1.7 million new folks in California in last few years might have anything to do with their energy shortage do you?

Eric The(WhatNoQuestionsAboutBrainSurgery?)Hun[>]:)]  

I grew up playing "violent" video games and I have turned out fine, along with the rest of Americans that have played video games.  It is also the parents that need to take responsibility.  My gosh, most parents could care less about what their kids are doing so long as "they are out of their hair" My parents would never allow me to close my bedroom door and would do certain things to make sure that they knew everything that was going on, and THEY DID KNOW EVERYTHING!  Government needs to get out of our lives it is not their job to decide what is moral or not, leave it to parents.

RSeacord...

Ok,  The original legislation would prohibit anyone under the age of 18 (now lowered to 16) from playing any video game or interactive media device in which the player uses a replica of a gun, rifle, or similar weapon that simulates the firing of ammunition.  Stores would have to post a warning sign and could be fined up to $1,000 for violating the prohibition.  There is NO STRICT LIABILITY... the proprietor would have to act "knowingly" in order to be liable.  Furthermore, parents can still buy the games for children under 16 if they so choose, or authorize for their children to play them in public venues.  The bill would require any video game sold or delivered by a manufacturer or distributor within NY to bear a rating in accordance with the rating system recommended by an advisory counsil.  The state would establish a parent/teacher anti-violence awareness program and would finance it through a special fund.  At this point the Senator is holding state wide hearings to examine the need for legislation of this type.  He is compiling a list of experts, BOTH PRO AND CON, and based on these findings the senate will see if this legislation is necessary.  A preliminary statement of the senator's was as follows:  "Though not a panacea for societal violence nor a substitute for good parenting, the recommednadations of this report are designed to reduce children's exposure to harmful and inappropriate material, and to give parents more control over the types of games their children play."
(Continued)

Jeez, I can't imagine any Republican Senator in the State of Texas thinking about proposing such a hare-brained law.  Democrats? Of course, but no one I know of that's a Republican.

Who might he/she (Florence Shapiro?) be??

So a parent can give written permission for their under-16 year old kid to play the dreaded video game?  How's that gonna work? A notarized statement with picture i.d. of the kid attached?

Eric The(Hell,It'llFail)Hun[>]:)]

The original Miller Test...A Finding of obscenity depends upon:
1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
3. whether the work, taken as whole, lacks serious literary, artictic, political, or scientific value.
The modified test would be something as follows:
1.  Taken as a whole and applying contemporary community standards, the average person would find that it has a tendency to cater or appeal to morbid interest in violence for persons under the age of 16; and
2.  It depicts violence in a way which is patently offensive to the average person applying contemporary adult community standards with respect to what is suitable for persons under the age of 16; and
3.  Taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for persons under the age of 16...
Another possible form of the legislation:
1.  It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly exhibit, display, sell, rent, or otherwise distribute or offer to exhibit, display, sell, rent or otherwise distribute any matter consisting of or containing, harmful material to a minor.
2.  "Harmful material" means material of any form or medium consisting of or containing at least one depiction, description, or representation, of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violnce, or sadomasochistic abuse.
3.  Violence refers to acts of physical force or threats of imminent physical force, directed against property, persons, or anthropocentric characterizations thereof, which causes or threatens to cause actual or simulated physical harm to such property, person, or anthropocentric characterization.
4.  Whether violence is excessive depends on the detail or graphic clarity with which the descriptions or depictions portray violent acts, the number of such violent scenes in relation to the overall number of scenes in the work, the degree to which weaponry is involved with the commission of violent acts, the extent of physical harm resulting from such violece, the degree to which the violence causes unnatural, bizarre, morbid, or prolonged injury or death, the importance of such violent scenes to the artistic integrity of the work, and whether the work is marketed or pandered in whole or in part on its appeal to violent interests...
(continued)  later...hehe

Aye, Aye, garandman.

Scipio,

If you are going to grease the wheels of tyranny, at least do it right.  I happen to enjoy Shadow Warrior.  That game had a Katana in it that would disembowel, sever limbs, and chop through a torso.  I also liked the original Blood and the pitch fork in it.  Don't forget to include sharp and pointy objects that don't run out of ammo.  Duke Nukem had the Mighty Foot.  And if you configured your 3 button mouse a certain way, you could double foot stomp someone to death.  Don't forget to include the use of bare hands and feet in the legislation too.  

And concerning this pearl of wisdom:


I've already got that kind of control and don't need your help in the raising of my son.



I also question why this particular state is mentioned?  Are you sure the dishonorable Senator is in fact a Republican?  And let me guess, the members of the advisory council are appointed instead of elected.  

Semper Fi

"It is good to know that the kids will still be able to get games where they pummel people with fists, matrial arts moves, and cut them with swords, as long as we keep them from the guns!"

actually, from reading what he has posted, it looks like these types of games will potentially be regulated also. i dont like the way this is panning out either, but its too late to get into it right now (1:30am). ill pick this up tomorrow when im awake and can think straight.

When a leader "thinks" he knows what's best for his community, without knowing all the facts or assuming standard deviations (which in this case is a giant number)...violent games caused 20 deaths (overlooking that probably hundred of misguided children under no discretion of their [i]parents[/i] about guns picked up daddy's glock and shot themselves in the head)? "Ban Them, protect my commune...save us, save us!"

Ahhh, socialism at it's best!!!
[brown]Evil Jewbroni~[/brown]

By the way...couldn't have put it better myself.  Good quick-and-dirty analysis, beekeeper, does anything else [i]really[/i] need to be said at this point?

[brown]Evil Jewbroni~[/brown]

People:

We need to develop some principles that are uncompromisable.  

Was is Scipio that said in one of his posts...What people seem to be having a problem with is that many really don't understand that Constitutional rights are finite in our legal system today... now you can stand there and say that that is not the way our forefathers meant it to be and I might agree with that, but that is not the way things work today...

Because people started compromising their principles.  

Please don't do it any more.

Best said in a quote posted earlier...They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin,1706-1790

BTW, I think Dpreacher was not off base in his fervor and passion. More like this are needed.  

This is the biggest crock I think I have ever read on this site. Are you sure you aren't McUzi?

So basically you are saying that you don't want to infringe on any constitutional rights, but since people have already trampled on them then you wouldn't really be infringing on them if you trampled to the same extent? Look either you respect what the constitution says or you don't.

After reading half of the BS you have written on this thread not only do I think you are a hypocrite, but if I had to classify you as a person you would go in the same folder as Feinstein and Schumer, and its not because I think you are a Jew. What kind of crazed control freak are you? Glad I hadn't ate breakfast before I read this trash because I probably would have lost it.

What exactly does this mean anyways?

"now you can stand there and say that that is not the way our forefathers meant it to be and I might agree with that, but that is not the way things work today..."

The way I read it is that even though you might not agree with some of the stuff you are arguing for you are going to try to push it down everyone elses throat anyways?

You disgust me......

Look... you guys need to connect the dots.  If you read the proposed legal standard, and then read the proposed legislation, you will see that the legislation would never pass in its current form... it is legally overbroad and vague...not to mention the serious Due Process issues here.  Again, I'm being put in a postition where the blame for these laws is being placed on me.  My part in this is strictly investigatory.  I'm looking at all of the legal arguments, as is the senator.  What if my findings show that this law is completely unconstitutional and based on precedent would never pass muster... would you all be mad at me then?  Would I still be a hypocrit?  Wouldn't you rather have someone like me, a 2nd Amendment\Bill of Rights supporter doing this kind of research, rather than some "dogooder, liberal" as some around here might say???

Scipio:

If you have direct access to a senator and can influence legislation, or stop it, you are in a unique situation that should be take advantage of.  I think you have enough ammo from this thread.

Quoted:
Look... you guys need to connect the dots.  

--I have been connecting the dots...You need to quit treating everyone like a child.

"snip"

Again, I'm being put in a postition where the blame for these laws is being placed on me.

--Maybe its because in your original post you said, "I'm helping a State Senator write an article for a law journal. The article is attempting to gain support for legislation that would make certain forms of violent media restricted to adults and therefore inaccessible to those who have not reached the age of majority." This in my eyes does place you in a position of blame. I wish you would stick to your original story...


My part in this is strictly investigatory.  I'm looking at all of the legal arguments, as is the senator.  What if my findings show that this law is completely unconstitutional and based on precedent would never pass muster... would you all be mad at me then?  Would I still be a hypocrit?  Wouldn't you rather have someone like me, a 2nd Amendment\Bill of Rights supporter doing this kind of research, rather than some "dogooder, liberal" as some around here might say???

--So you are trying to figure out if this law will make it if challenged in the courts, if it has a chance in hell Im sure you will push for its enactment as well. Why should I feel better that someone who believes in the right to own guns is helping with a law that will affect how my children live? Would it make you feel any better if a 2nd Amendment/Bill of Rights supporter raped your wife instead of some "do-gooder liberal"?

--Your logic is tragically flawed....

ponyboy... If this legislation stands a chance in the court, I won't push for anything... my role ends when the research is finished.  I'm not a legislator.  

Oh yeah... I meant to thank you for not "accusing" me of being a Jew.  But then again, I'd rather be a "Jew" than a Faggot with the name Ponyboy...

You disgust me too

OK - this is going nowhere.

The merits of the various positions have been stated.

Enter "name calling" - stage left.

Close curtains. LOCKED.

P.S. If you think there's more to be discussed, open another thread, but "can" the pissing.