Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/3/2001 6:14:41 PM EDT
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 includes games that simulate violent acts, especially those that require the use of a gun. The underlying thesis is that such interactive media not only desensitizes children to violence, but it trains them to be more efficient killers. There is substantial research that backs this up. Although it won't prevent me from writing the article, I have a serious problem with doing research for a project that will take things away from kids that I myself enjoyed while I was growing up and still enjoy to this day. I mean, when I get back from the law library, I play Swat 3 and Rogue Spear, followed by the cleaning and dry firing of any one of my numerous high powered assault rifles... My exposure to this has not made me hurt anybody. Although I agree that our culture is saturated with sex, drugs and violence to the detriment of us all, with out my "violent" distractions, I'd be bored...
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:22:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:23:49 PM EDT
Yes. I would also like to see the research that proves today's kids are any more violent than they were before. Most (male) children grow up playing guns, cowboys and indians, etc. Humans are violent and always have been. Why don't help write a bill that will censor the carnage shown on "reality" TV and netwrok news? That is real, not fake. Frankly, I find it a bit offensive that you think children are incapable of maturing to the point that they realize that these things aren't real and are bad things to do to real people. Support a Senator that will reintroduce morality and dicipline to schools, not limit what freedoms the radicals have left us with.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:27:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 6:27:40 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:28:20 PM EDT
Sounds like a lot of "feel good liberal socialist undermining of the Constitution bullshit". Why don't you go lick your masters jackboots and leave the parenting of my child to me. GO FUCK YOURSELF, you elitist whore!!!! Semper Fi
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:29:08 PM EDT
rg00red... My enemies are liberals...not necessarily radicals. Obviously I don't think that children are incapable of maturing without knowing what is "right" and what is "wrong"... this should be clear based on what I said about my own experience. As far as the research goes, a good place for you to start would be to read a book called "On Killing" by retired Lt. Col. David Grossman... Obviously you are unaware of the nature of video games today... it goes way beyond "coyboys" and "indians"
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:29:59 PM EDT
"Fast & Furious" inspired me to drive home like a maniac. Still I realized what I was doing was wrong and I wouldn't sue the producers if I got a speeding ticket. It is a real tough question, they do inspire and I think they should be restricted until a certain age, just like movies.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:31:48 PM EDT
Some of you sound just as programmed as some of the people you claim to hate... Read what I say and respond intelligently or don't respond at all... and for your information, this senator IS a republican.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:34:04 PM EDT
I'm aware of the startling realism of video games, because I play them too (bastards at Sony are going to make me go out and by another game system). I haven't read LTC. Grossman's book, and before I do I would like to ask you a question: Is it based on actual scientific study, with a control group, or is it just casual observation?
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:42:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 6:40:23 PM EDT by Scipio]
The book is based on scientific studies as well as interviews of veterans of many different wars... it is an interesting read, I don't agree with all of it, but it is definitely food for thought. And I'd also like to address another issue. I see so many people talking about their Constitutional rights, be they freedom of speech or the right to bear arms... Some of the broad sweeping statements I see show that many people have little to no "real knowledge" about what their "rights" really are. Some people should do some unbiased historical research. Legal historical research... and by this I mean researching the common-law and statutory and legislative histories... not some paperback book written by somebody whom you know shares your views... I'm 100% for the right to bear arms, states rights and every other amendment in the bill of rights, but I've made these decisions based on my search for the truth and not irrational, uneducated perceptions wich I choose to live by...
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:46:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 6:46:54 PM EDT by mattja]
Of course it's proposed by a Republican. Although, I would assert a misguided Republican. The dems are never for these restrictions because they want those Hollywood dollars. If Hollywood could make a dollar filming goats and donkeys getting it on, they would film it and air it, and the dems would support their right to do so. It's all about money. As far as the restrictions, this is BS. It's the responsibility of parents to raise their children, not the government. The Senator could be under pressure from certain religious groups or he could simply feel that he's doing the right thing. But we have to get away from this kind of thinking. You cannot restrict everyone's freedom to "save" those few who have no parental guidance. The real issue is why are these kids exposed to this kind of stuff? Where is mommy and daddy? The government is not in the position to raise our children. This is our responsibility as parents and I would prefer that they keep the hell out of my business. By the way, I'm not a parent until November, so I'm using "our responsibility as parents" a little loosely. Sorry.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:49:03 PM EDT
I don't give a shit what party the dishonorable scumbag is a member of! Trying to legislate morality is a fools/socialists dream. Yes, I do know exactly how violent those games are. When I had the time to play first person shooters, Half-Life was my favorite. I am the one responsible for the values my son learns. Not you or the other dogooders who try to save the stupid or irresponsible from themselves. What is it with dipshits, like yourself, that make you feel you know what is best for the rest of us? Semper Fi
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:52:26 PM EDT
DPEACHER... you're an ignorant asshole, and your children will probably follow in your footsteps... I'm not trying to tell anybody anything, and I'm not passing any laws... I'm just doing a favor for somebody who can help me in my career, and while I'm doing it, I'm learning a little... and quit signing your posts with Semper Fi... you're embarassing the Marine Corps...
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:58:55 PM EDT
When i was a child we did not have the video games that they have today. That doesnt mean we were any less "violent". I used to love to "blow" up things with firecrakers, which included an occasional toad. We had BB gun wars (which when it look back on it was not such a great idea), my point is that kids had other "violent" activities that they did, no matter what era they grew up in. All your research is going to be used for is to hold the video game industry liable for any jack-ass kid that goes out and shoots somone. Why dont you do some research on how the Liberal media covers and glorifies all of the school shootings. The children know they will get thier five seconds of fame because they see these stories on the news over and over. The media has a bigger impact on the children than the video game industry does.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:01:15 PM EDT
No offense to you, but i hope a law restricting those games never gets passed.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:03:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 7:03:16 PM EDT by ARlady]
i agree 110% with mattja, it's a parental responsibility. but i also think that there is some truth to the desensitization argument. not that children become immune to it and therefore go out and do it. it's much more subtle than that. it's more like, "oh, another murder today." rather than expressing outrage or extreme sorrow at another death or other act of violence, we react with relative indifference. i think that is how we are becoming desensitized. i DO NOT think that violent video games or movies inspire kids to go out and commit similar acts of violence. but i think that there's a greater level of acceptance of those kinds of things when we are exposed to them. and in the end, acceptance can be just as bad as commission of the act. edited so as not to inflame the already-irritated.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:06:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jennifer: "Fast & Furious" inspired me to drive home like a maniac. Still I realized what I was doing was wrong and I wouldn't sue the producers if I got a speeding ticket. It is a real tough question, they do inspire and I think they should be restricted until a certain age, just like movies.
View Quote
Isnt it easier to get inspired to drive like a maniac than to get inspired to kill somebody? I mean, look at the thousands of kids who play games like Goldeneye and Rouge spear. How many of them go and start killing people because they got inspired by a game?
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:08:28 PM EDT
I know what my rights are, I really don't need to be given a lecture on case law. I'm a Libertarian, therefore, I really don't give a shit about any legislation or legal decisions that came after the Bill of Rights. Maybe I'm foolish, but one can create only so many laws before everything becomes illegal. Do the Senator a favor, tell him not to commit political suicide by attacking the well-cashed video game industry or the millions of people who play such games. What's next, age restrictions for books? Pretty soon one will be carded for every purchase he makes. That bothers me, and if you know WHY you have the right to bear arms (you should given your legal knowledge), it would bother you too.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:11:29 PM EDT
It does bother me... thats why I started the thread in the first place... and I don't mean to lecture anybody... I apologize if my post came off in that way...
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:14:02 PM EDT
...I'm not trying to tell anybody anything, and I'm not passing any laws... I'm just doing a favor for somebody who can help me in my career......The article is attempting to gain support for [b]legislation[/b] that would make certain forms of violent media restricted to adults and therefore inaccessible to those who have not reached the age of majority.
View Quote
Like I said before. Go lick your Master's jackboots. And stop pissing on my back and telling me its raining. I've got your number pegged, and watching you squirm under the spotlight brings me great pleasure. You know what you are doing is morally corrupt, but you will pursue any avenue you can to further your own selfish desires, regardless of the cost to the citizens your Master is supposed to serve. [size=6]Semper Fi[/size=6]
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:18:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 7:16:28 PM EDT by SGB]
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:19:20 PM EDT
DPEacher... you unbelievable SOB... I love how you combine two of my posts and in doing so twist what was trying to say... you are no different than the media... shithead... and it takes more than morons like you and interent chat to make me squirm... you're way out of your league...
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:33:31 PM EDT
Yes, it is hypocritical. Legislation that punishes victimless acts is an infringement on freedom. No injury, no offense. Show me a victim. Remember also, no matter what our training, humans have free will. My father was a thoroughly desensitized, well-trained killer but he kept it on the battlefield. You can find guys like him everywhere living in peace, helping neighbors and loving their families.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:36:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 7:45:55 PM EDT by 308_fan]
Yes, it makes you a hippocrit. How can you aid in the deprivation of something you yourself enjoy? I also play these games. I dont think it desensitizes me to violence. If I was inclined to be a violent person, I dont need a computer game to motivate me to it. If a person has violent tendancies, they are pre disposed with this tendancy. How can you even ask the question if you are a hippocrit. The fact that you even ask the question, suggests that you already know the truth, and you just want someone to reassure that you are not. I also think that this supposed research that games and what not contribute to kids becoming violent is just a bunch of bullshit. How long are we as a nation going to hide behind the excuse of what kids are exposed to, as being the reason behind societies ill? Put the blame where it belongs. How many of the young violent offenders spend any quality time with their parents? How many of them are taught the meaning between right and wrong, and that you alone are responsible for your own actions? Parents have to get back to taking responsability for the proper raising of their kids. Teach them well, and let them know that they are loved. Dont ask the members here if you are a hippocrit. Instead, appologize to the members for being one.[pissed]
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:40:22 PM EDT
Hi Scipio. Let's see if I can't give a completely "non-spinned" version of what a good stand on this is. I will take the view of "Parents instead of Gov't raising children" for this particular argument. I've written numerous reports about the Internet and the explicit content found therein. One of these included pornography, and how accessible it is to children. This is both a reasonable and contemporary analogy to use - pornography, as with guns and violence, can be found anywhere on the Internet with a simple keyword. Government regulations to install NetNanny, CyberSurf, etc have, like many other highly funded programs, been efficient and wasteful. Like the drug war, some things will never be completely stopped or "censored" to the point of inaccessibility; there will always be marijuana on coke on the streets, there will always be another Napster, there will always be guns in ghetto undergrounds for criminals to acquire, and...there will always be seedy sites on the 'Net that contain pornography. Look at AR15.com - while very occassional, we have a few excerpts of nude women on our site, all of which can be viewed by any 5-16 year old child who types in [url]www.AR15.com[/url] . Conclusion - we can't regulate it 100%, so what's the best way to control its viewing? Violence has been inherent in American society since its birth. As someone else previously stated, Cowboys & Indians was a 20th century tradition, followed by bad guys gettin' shot by lever action rifles on T.V. Westerns, movies, Kung-Fu and other fighting "superhero" programs, and has only been more and more technologically graphic as the decades have gone by. Video games moved from object-oriented destruction (Asteroids, Galaxa, Battlezone) to people-oriented (Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake). This, like TV shows, has gotten more technologically detailed. Instead of shooting 2D bad guys center-mass with shells you pick up off the ground and put in your 2-barreled shotgun, you rationally choose and buy M4's or AK47's, JHP or AP ammunition, sniper rifles, and SMG's. A young player uses his brain to find the most efficient way to murder his opponent...usually hoping to sneak up on that LEO in black and score a headshot in a vivid and realistic 3D environment. This is expected; violence begets violence. It can only get more graphic as time goes on. Does this increasing trend of violence on TV and games mean the end of civilized thought patterns of children as we know it? (END OF PART 1)
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:41:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 7:40:56 PM EDT by Jewbroni]
(BEGINNING OF PART 2) Negative. Most kids, through common sense, don't take guns to school and kill off students and administrators...especially the kids who have and regularly use firearms, with parental permission. Even today, many of us take out children out to a local range club, and pop off rounds of ear-blisteringly loud ammunition with the kids in deadly looking black assault rifles. Does this make the situation worse, having your own mom or dad COMMEND your use of firing ammunition at that human silhoutte target some distance away? What parent would be negligent enough not to sit down with their child, give them a firm lecture on proper safety, use, and the Not-to-do's (such as taking the gun to school or playing with them in the presence of friends) of firearms, preceding the visit to that range? I cannot think of a single one. That is because the parents are fully cognizent of what the children have been and will become exposed to. This is another reason that kids who are charged with school weapons violations rarely own and/or use those weapons regularly, such as hunting or practice shooting with them (do some personal research on this, if you can find it, to affirm this statement). The ones who have been 'lectured' by their parents, however, are not the ones that grow accustomed to sneaking into the closet and grabbing the Glock to put in their backpack. Parental guidance, instruction, control, and support will [b]always[/b] be a greater influence to kids than any Federal legislation. For a quick-and-dirty example, research on which "source" more children learn to not do, say, drugs and alcohol - funded commercials (prominently seen between shows about sex, drugs, and alcohol) or their own parents. In short, violence, like an underground, will be an unstoppable rampage for eternity. The program this Senator is supporting is trying to un-desensitive damage that is already done - not feasible, nor is it effective. The question of children and their reactions to violent nature is not if we should protect them from violence, as [b]ignorance[/b] of it is usually the worst thing that can be done when they are bound to find it anyway. The argument, rather, should be WHAT is the best way to discipline and teach our children values in a violent world? The answer, as clearly given, is the parent(s). Hope I have given you a good start for your research and your stand on this issue. [blue]Jewbroni~[/blue] P.S. - Stop flaming this guy. He's asking a VERY reasonable question, because he's looking for support on something he, like us, all agree on - that this legislature has flaws. If your SENATOR actually had the common courtesy to call you up and ask your opinion on a bill, would you chew him out or give him a solid opinion? Oh yeah...and ponder which one would win him over better, eh? Think before you speak, and stop embarassing yourselves. Thank You.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:53:16 PM EDT
What's the matter Scipio? Did you get a good look at the reality mirror, and not like what you saw? You are the one who asked the question,"Does this make me a hypocrit?". The exact words you used answered the question. And although I did edit your quotes, it was done to clarify the hypocricy of your own words, nothing was taken out of context. I only held up the reality mirror for you to take hard look at the complete grotesqueness of a hypocritical elitist liberal dogooder in action. You are correct about one thing. I am out of my league. I have no idea why I continue to lower myself to wallow in the mud under whale shit where scum sucking bottom feeders like yourself live. Semper Fi
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:01:39 PM EDT
I grew up in the 60's and although we didn't have Duke Nukem and all that high tech violence, I saw more than my share on TV, the news, in cartoons, at the movies (like staying over to see the M rated movie following the G rated movie), etc. I saw my share of broadcast violence during the Vietnam War, complete with the bodies, blood, gore, etc. And I was 10-14 years-old at that time. However, when I was 14 and the old lady crossed the street and got nailed by the car a few blocks from my house and I saw her guts and blood literally spilled across the road I was traumatized for weeks. For a few weeks I avoided walking that way to school because there were still visible blood stains on the road and on the sidewalk. Seeing it in real life had a major effect on me. So, is it any different today? It's one thing to see it in games and on TV, but I personally don't feel children are any less affected by it today if they see it in real life. The problem and solution to violence lies in the home. The govt. is incapable of providing a solution.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:02:19 PM EDT
This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Im not very old, and I grew up watching people with masks chopping other peoples heads off with chainsaws and all kinds of other gory movies. Did I turn out to be a mass murderer? No, I didn't. Can any of yall guess why? Because my parents raised me to not be a mass murderer. If you want to write something for a journal, then write how parents should be held liable for the misdeeds of their children if it can be found that they were neglected or not cared for enough and taught the difference between right and wrong. In fact, why don't you just try to get daycare outlawed? Force people to take care of their own children instead of paying someone else who couldn't give a shit less how they turn out to do it. Yeah, I think you are a hypocrit and not a very smart one at that..... Michael
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:06:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Yeah, I think you are a hypocrit and not a very smart one at that..... Michael
View Quote
There people go slamming this guy again. Well, more power to em - resort to insults, and you've already lost your argument [^] [brown]Evil Jewbroni~[/brown]
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:13:23 PM EDT
Jewbroni, If I didn't know better(and I don't!), I might confuse you with Kofi Anon. Thank you.[:D] Semper Fi
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:14:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:38:30 PM EDT
I'm trying to figure out why I'm being flamed too... I thought my question was more than reasonable. And yes, I am one of you, and damn, with friends like you, who needs enemies? I do think that this legislation has problems... thats why I made the post in the first place. You people who are doing the flaming don't know me for shit... and you're also the reason why many of "us" have such a bad reputation. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies...
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:41:26 PM EDT
Lest we not forget, "Freedom is the Highest Law"!!
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:47:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:49:32 PM EDT
Ever see the Road Runner cartoons? How about The Three Stooges? Old Buster Keaton movies? There HAS ALWAYS been violent media, that has not changed. The socialist mindset being taught is what is changing the kids. They don't value life, they believe something is always owed to them, and in instant gratification. Your Senator is only going to succeed in giving the 1st Amendment a shove down the slippery slope to tyranny.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 9:15:13 PM EDT
thebeekeeper1, Why take it personal? Because it is my personal liberty that will be infringed if the legislation Scipio will write in support of is passed into law. He is one of us? I guess he owns a firearm. I own a car, and so does Ted Kennedy, does that make me one of them? I don't think so. He asked a reasonable question? Just like the questions Sara Brady, Rosie O'Donnell, and a long list of others, who would not know the truth if they tripped over it. You can't reason with the unreasonable, they only respond to brute force. Name calling seems juvenile? We all have names, his are just a bit more colorful then others, but every bit as fitting. You seem to be a reasonable man, so I will be reasonable with you. Scipio seems to be ruthless in his pursuit to further his career, and in his willingness to trample the liberty I cherish so dearly. So I will be more ruthless then he, to protect my liberty. There is no second place in this contest, and I refuse to lose. If Patton would have tried a little bit harder, he might have had what it takes to be a Marine.[:D] I wish your step son fair winds and following seas. I also stood on the yellow footprints for the first time on 7 August....1984 Semper Fi
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 9:29:36 PM EDT
DPeacher: You almost make valid points, but your rhetoric makes everything you say unpalatable. Wrapping your words in shit makes you look exactly like what Scipio called you. By making an ass of yourself in an argument you only lend credence to what your opposition says.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 9:34:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 10:25:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: Also, please, PLEASE straighten out my step son. He is a mouthy, disrespectful little punk. At least get him to wear his pants without his boxers showing. . . .and that "slouch" is unbearable to observe. I love my wife, but she should not have bred with her first husband. [;)]
View Quote
..and this guy's gonna join the Corp? BAH HA HA HA. They'll check his pants every hour, on the hour, and see how far they are from the line of his underwear. If they're not Exactly, say, 5/8" apart, GIMME 50 PUSHUPS BOY!!!! Hehehehe, this boy's going to WISH his mom never bred at all! [brown]Evil Jewbroni~[/brown]
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 11:01:36 PM EDT
rg00red, Your keen insight has been duly noted. And to a great extent, I agree. However, some times, good medicine tastes bad, or should I say "unpalatable". Yes, I do use profane language from time to time. But there are a great number if things far more profane then my language in this thread. I sense you and others have been offended by my language, and I apologize for offending you and them. I am however unrepentant for my choice of language, much the same way I would be unrepentant for the lawful use of deadly force. I would be sorry it had to happen, but not that I did it! thebeekeeper1, The flies thing I understand. But I prefer a fly swatter over the other two choices. To the great delight of many on this board, it won't be me who makes the attitude adjustments in your stepson. I left the Corps in December 1999. But I will guarantee you won't have to worry about the boxer shorts issue, or the "slouch"! The mouthy disrespectfulness will be disciplined and reserved for those who are not worthy of respect. Thank you for your kind words. But there are many, many more who did a great deal more for this country than I. I just did what I could, the best that I could. And in the end, that is all the satisfaction I could hope for. BTW, what is "mufti"?
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 11:31:41 PM EDT
Scipio, Please read what you are saying. I am reading that you grew up with violence, enjoy it currently and find it to be an outlet. Furthermore, you are willing to take the pleasure of these games away from your children for possible personal gain. You are also willing to take them away from EVERY child in the USA. Controlling what your own children can/cannot do is a requirement of being a parent. Controlling what others children do is not your right. With the limited information you have given, it appears that your "Republican" (democrat with a bible) Senator is suggesting that it is the responsibility of the government to raise children and not the responsibility of the parentS. Do you hold this view? If not, you are a hypocrite. Write the article, help get the law passed. Then when you come home and find your kids playing 007 or even Zelda (it's got swords and bows and arrows and monsters you have to kill), call the police and turn yourself in. Or wait for your neighbors to call the firemen on you because you have some books that weren't turned in during the guvmint book buy back program. If you really want to help get a useful law passed, get corporal punishment legalized. Lastly, please point us to the well documented research that shows children who are exposed to fantasy violence are better trained to become "...more efficient killers." That statement so smacks of MMMism, I can see MY senators spewing that crap. sleep well david
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 4:12:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jewbroni:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Yeah, I think you are a hypocrit and not a very smart one at that..... Michael
View Quote
There people go slamming this guy again. Well, more power to em - resort to insults, and you've already lost your argument [^] [brown]Evil Jewbroni~[/brown]
View Quote
Oh, yeah...I really slammed him. He asked for my opinion and he got it. Who the fuck are you anyways, the post police? If you don't like the way people respond to a possibly inflammitory question then don't read the damn thread. Are you the kind of person that is always sticking your nose in places where it doesn't belong? Well, it doesn't belong in my reply so get it the hell out....... Michael
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 4:29:53 AM EDT
Yes. You just proved in your own post why that article would be bull$hit. But it does happen, and some kids will continue to use it as an excuse. "I shot my teacher in the nuts cause you can do it on Counter Strike to the hostages, and they don't die!" [b]DON'T DO IT . . . FOR THE KIDS!![/b]
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 4:46:38 AM EDT
We don`t need moderators on this site.....we need referee`s!!!!!!!!....besides, what is "age of majority"?......[spank]
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 5:11:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 6:04:15 AM EDT
Hypocrite? Oh yes!!
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 6:47:13 AM EDT
Post from Garand Shooter -
Legislation like this is why I don't vote Republican.
View Quote
Let me guess, you vote Libertarian only, right? And that will get the job done, right? And your party is on the presidential ballot in only 25 states, right? And there are absolutely no Libertarians that hold statewide office in ANY state in the union, right? And the closest thing to an actual Libertarian in office is Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas, who left the GOP in 1987 to run as Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988, lost and then returned to the Republican Party as Congressman after that, right? Why don't you ask Congressman Ron Paul if you should support the Republican Party? I know who he supported in 2000 Election - BUSH! The Republican Party was founded in 1856. In just four years it captured the White House, and Congress, and held on for 25 years. If the Libertarian Party could do that, then we wouldn't have any problems, right? And are you certain you support UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION to this Country? Eric The(I'mGonnaBeABrainSurgeonInTheLibertarianSt­atesOfAmerica!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 7:59:28 AM EDT
Look, the bill that is proposed will not make it illegal for parents to buy such games for their children, it will only make it illegal for sellers or distributors to sell them to children! Dpeacher... you really don't seem to understand what your "rights" are. You can talk all of that libertarian stuff all you want... but whether you like it or not, we have a supreme court that interprets and reinterprets what the constitution means. For instance, the 1st amendment is NOT absolute, certain forms of speech are not protected, ie, obscenity... Do you have a problem with pornography being restricted from children, or alcohol? If you do, then why? For your information, I completely feel that it is the responsibility of parents to raise their own children, and as I said, this proposed bill will still allow parents to do that. However, just so you know, the Supreme Court has held that States have a responsibility to pass laws which aid in the parenting of children... one of the most important interests of the state is to protect its children... Like I said before, you don't know me for shit, but you seem to think that you have me "pegged"... In reality, idiots like you, who can't make an intelligent, fact based argument need people like me... lawyers who will interpret the Constitution in a strict constructionist way and ensure that our rights don't fade away... You attack me without knowing any specifics about the bill or myself... you should learn to walk softly...
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 8:34:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Scipio: Look, the bill that is proposed will not make it illegal for parents to buy such games for their children, it will only make it illegal for sellers or distributors to sell them to children!
View Quote
Much like the way BB guns are now treated? It is stupid the way that is handled as well. I myself had a modest arsenal of BB/Pellet guns by the time I was 12, and I bought most of those by myself while my parents were shopping in another part of the store. I never shot anybody, or held up a store with one. The only thing I ever did was break one of the windows while shooting pine cones that apparently were a little too close to the house. What is the purpose of these stupid laws other than inconveniencing people? Im 24 now and about two years ago I got carded for buying spraypaint at WalMart! Great, people can't control their kids enough to stop them from sniffing paint so lets just not let them be able to buy it. Now they steal it out of somebodies garage or just go get some heroine and shoot up since its easier to get than paint from WalMart. If I had ever did something bad and got in trouble when I was younger then I would get my ass beat and I would know better than to do that next time. Now, thanks to people like you trying to do stuff "for the children" its hard for people to even punish their own children for fear of being charged with child abuse. You may think you are doing things for the betterment of society, but I don't see how limiting more of our freedoms that we as American citizens are supposed to have benefits anyone in anyway. I think you and your beliefs are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Most of the civilized world has grown too soft. People need to realize that there are consequences to their actions, whether they be good or bad. One thing that really iritates me is most peoples view on prisons. Prisons are not there to rehabilitate criminals. They are there to punish people who have done something seriously wrong and prisoners should have no rights. When someone is released from prison all rights should be restored, and yes that means the right to own a firearm again. I know Ive gotten off the subject here, but it really all goes together. You need to be out there writing articles on why we should quit cuddling criminals regardless of their age instead of writing stuff on how better to limit peoples rights....Yes, children have rights too.. Michael
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 8:50:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/4/2001 8:50:18 AM EDT by Scipio]
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. Ponyboy, you talk about consequences... isn't that what the purpose of law making is for? 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. "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. 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. 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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top