Legacy Fan Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 If they can't put any restrictions on guns (the second amendment) they can't put any restrictions on video games either (that would be the first amendment, folks.) The first amendment is limited to protecting the printing press. Just as the 2nd is limited to the musket. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 The first amendment is limited to protecting the printing press. Just as the 2nd is limited to the musket. Right? Well I'm sure as technology changes rapidly its worth looking at what it DOES cover. Is it really for the best to have free speech ruling the internet? Sure you could say whatever you want whenever you want but if you're in duluth people in Cleveland can't hear you. You could write anything you want without being thrown in jail but its up to a publisher whether they want to publish that and then stores if they want to carry it. What are the societal effects of anyone being able to see anything at any time? How demoralizing to society is hardcore porn on demand? Beatings on demand? Murder on demand? You can see all those things right now if you want to. And nobody is monitoring anyone's viewing habits. How many people have had their throats slit and their heads hacked off their living body because now everyone can see it and be terrorized? How many terrorists have been emboldened now that the world can be revolted by their brutality? What good is it doing society to see two girls one cup or the dagestan massacre? Just so future Adam Lanza's can watch vicious murders and think "I can do worse"? There is no educational, scientific or entertainment merit in such things. They are the most depraved and disgusting things humans can do. Just to do them. So I think there's a very good case for the limitation of the first amendment in relation to the internet, and a very good case for the limitation of the second for certain weapons, sure. One thing all of is should be able to agree on...the founding fathers couldn't have concieved of the technologies we would have today, and therefore could not have drawn up any plan to govern those things at all. The pace of technology has changed more on the time between the writing of the constitution and now than in the entire history of the world before the constitution. I'd say its a bit stupid to lean on a document written in what is now essentially the dark ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 The constitution is outdated, I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 The constitution is outdated, I agree Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Well I'm sure as technology changes rapidly its worth looking at what it DOES cover. Is it really for the best to have free speech ruling the internet? Sure you could say whatever you want whenever you want but if you're in duluth people in Cleveland can't hear you. You could write anything you want without being thrown in jail but its up to a publisher whether they want to publish that and then stores if they want to carry it. What are the societal effects of anyone being able to see anything at any time? How demoralizing to society is hardcore porn on demand? Beatings on demand? Murder on demand? You can see all those things right now if you want to. And nobody is monitoring anyone's viewing habits. How many people have had their throats slit and their heads hacked off their living body because now everyone can see it and be terrorized? How many terrorists have been emboldened now that the world can be revolted by their brutality? What good is it doing society to see two girls one cup or the dagestan massacre? Just so future Adam Lanza's can watch vicious murders and think "I can do worse"? There is no educational, scientific or entertainment merit in such things. They are the most depraved and disgusting things humans can do. Just to do them. So I think there's a very good case for the limitation of the first amendment in relation to the internet, and a very good case for the limitation of the second for certain weapons, sure. One thing all of is should be able to agree on...the founding fathers couldn't have concieved of the technologies we would have today, and therefore could not have drawn up any plan to govern those things at all. The pace of technology has changed more on the time between the writing of the constitution and now than in the entire history of the world before the constitution. I'd say its a bit stupid to lean on a document written in what is now essentially the dark ages. Censoring the internet for the sake of "maintaining a healthy society" is a dangerous line of reasoning. Sure, terror is one of the things that the internet is used for, but how are you going to differentiate between the video of Daniel Pearl getting his head hacked off and a video of white phosphorus getting dropped on civilians? The internet needs to serve as a platform for whistleblowers who bring injustice to light, especially in places where the state censors other forms of media. There's no good way to choose who should get to see that. It exists, and everyone can choose whether they want to watch it. As far as gore in general, I know plenty of medical students who actually seek that stuff out to desensitize them from the stuff that they see in the ER. You're not going to be doing anyone any good if you're shellshocked. Do you think it's a good idea to require a physician's license or med school login to look at that stuff? What about pre med students? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Censoring the internet for the sake of "maintaining a healthy society" is a dangerous line of reasoning. Sure, terror is one of the things that the internet is used for, but how are you going to differentiate between the video of Daniel Pearl getting his head hacked off and a video of white phosphorus getting dropped on civilians? The internet needs to serve as a platform for whistleblowers who bring injustice to light, especially in places where the state censors other forms of media. There's no good way to choose who should get to see that. It exists, and everyone can choose whether they want to watch it. As far as gore in general, I know plenty of medical students who actually seek that stuff out to desensitize them from the stuff that they see in the ER. You're not going to be doing anyone any good if you're shellshocked. Do you think it's a good idea to require a physician's license or med school login to look at that stuff? What about pre med students? Sure, well the med schools or hospitals could keep a database of medical video. Problem solved for med students. The internet is eventually going to be reigned in. It's just too dangerous and not even in terms of what people watch. Cyber attacks and digital rights are what's eventually going to bring big brother down on it with both feet, and if, at that time, they choose to censor all the porn and gore I won't shed a tear for it. Will it be trampling the first amendment? Who knows? The first amendment wasn't designed to deal with the internet just like the second amendment wasn't designed to deal with Automatic rifles. Without getting back into the gun debate which is just a dead end around here, in the days of yore when the constitution was written you couldn't have walked into a school and shoot twenty kids dead. You'd have had to taken 20-50 loaded muskets with you. The larger problem in my mind is then, nobody wanted to. What's changed in the world where people want shoot up schools? The internet and the like. You're instantly the most famous person in the world, aren't you? And how do you fix that? More guns or less guns is pointless. It's not curing the cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 The larger problem in my mind is then, nobody wanted to. What's changed in the world where people want shoot up schools? The internet and the like. You're instantly the most famous person in the world, aren't you? And how do you fix that? More guns or less guns is pointless. It's not curing the cancer. Cysko ***************************************************** Now, you're talkin - In the old days, btw, it was musket vs musket - by the gov, citizens, everybody. They were the only guns. By parallel, in the least, it is our guns vs the gov guns, at least to a common sense point, eh? Anyways, what HAS changed? Internet, check, Expanded use of certain mind altering drugs, check. Violent video games that, imho, condition certain kids to *acting out in violence" where they enjoy the acting out. And the fame. Youtube, "Funniest Home Videos" are rife with examples of people doing really crazy, daring, stupid stuff that could get them life in a wheelchair if/when it goes wrong. "Outrageous" is funny. Sometimes. A lot of the time it's very dangerous. But the videos keep coming. And most all of those videos don't have anything to do with guns. And then there is obviously the dark side. Making videos of violent crime, rapes, horror movie stuff. Rare, yes. Still, "rare" is horrific, and it happens. But this "acting" out happened with charles manson and his "family". But it's happening more often now. And back in manson's time, there weren't video games unless it was ping pong... some drugs to treat depression or HDTD, whatever the acronym is, and different mentaldidn't exist. A few decades ago..? It was this criminally insane man who got into a house of nurses, and killed them - strangled maybe...Chicago? I don't even want to look it up... But now, something is happening more often. Somehow, some mental switch is being turned on that switches to "extremely and violently acting out". The Denmark murders... etc etc etc. It isn't the weapon that is the switch. It's the mental breakdown or something. But something is wrong, and the political maneuvering is delaying serious discussion as to why, and what a genuine solution? is to try to work against this "acting out in extreme violence" from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 1. Adhd is primarily treated with amphetimine salts. They've been using that since at least ww2. Hitler was known to use amphetimines, as did u.s. pilots 2. You're talking about Richard speck 3. You'll never solve murder but there are ways including reduction of media violence and common sense gun control that could make a great start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Will it be trampling the first amendment? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Sure, well the med schools or hospitals could keep a database of medical video. Problem solved for med students. The internet is eventually going to be reigned in. It's just too dangerous and not even in terms of what people watch. Cyber attacks and digital rights are what's eventually going to bring big brother down on it with both feet, and if, at that time, they choose to censor all the porn and gore I won't shed a tear for it. Will it be trampling the first amendment? Who knows? The first amendment wasn't designed to deal with the internet just like the second amendment wasn't designed to deal with Automatic rifles. Without getting back into the gun debate which is just a dead end around here, in the days of yore when the constitution was written you couldn't have walked into a school and shoot twenty kids dead. You'd have had to taken 20-50 loaded muskets with you. The larger problem in my mind is then, nobody wanted to. What's changed in the world where people want shoot up schools? The internet and the like. You're instantly the most famous person in the world, aren't you? And how do you fix that? More guns or less guns is pointless. It's not curing the cancer. I'm really glad that you are not in a position to influence laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 The larger problem in my mind is then, nobody wanted to. What's changed in the world where people want shoot up schools? The internet and the like. You're instantly the most famous person in the world, aren't you? And how do you fix that? More guns or less guns is pointless. It's not curing the cancer. Cysko ***************************************************** Now, you're talkin - In the old days, btw, it was musket vs musket - by the gov, citizens, everybody. They were the only guns. By parallel, in the least, it is our guns vs the gov guns, at least to a common sense point, eh? Anyways, what HAS changed? Internet, check, Expanded use of certain mind altering drugs, check. Violent video games that, imho, condition certain kids to *acting out in violence" where they enjoy the acting out. And the fame. Youtube, "Funniest Home Videos" are rife with examples of people doing really crazy, daring, stupid stuff that could get them life in a wheelchair if/when it goes wrong. "Outrageous" is funny. Sometimes. A lot of the time it's very dangerous. But the videos keep coming. And most all of those videos don't have anything to do with guns. And then there is obviously the dark side. Making videos of violent crime, rapes, horror movie stuff. Rare, yes. Still, "rare" is horrific, and it happens. But this "acting" out happened with charles manson and his "family". But it's happening more often now. And back in manson's time, there weren't video games unless it was ping pong... some drugs to treat depression or HDTD, whatever the acronym is, and different mentaldidn't exist. A few decades ago..? It was this criminally insane man who got into a house of nurses, and killed them - strangled maybe...Chicago? I don't even want to look it up... But now, something is happening more often. Somehow, some mental switch is being turned on that switches to "extremely and violently acting out". The Denmark murders... etc etc etc. It isn't the weapon that is the switch. It's the mental breakdown or something. But something is wrong, and the political maneuvering is delaying serious discussion as to why, and what a genuine solution? is to try to work against this "acting out in extreme violence" from happening. I like how one of your "times are changing" examples was Funniest Home Videos lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I like how one of your "times are changing" examples was Funniest Home Videos lol Apparently he's never seen tosh.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Cal is right. Clearly guns have nothing to do with gun violence... What do you want changed with video games Cal? Also, the car analogy is still lame and doesn't work. The two are completely different. Guns have everything to do with "gun violence" since the term is stating a specific type of violence. much like saying knives have everything to do with "knife violence". People using the term "gun violence" is a peeve of mine. You have effectively made a non-statement. By putting the word gun in front of violence you have narrowed the scope to only violence committed with guns, not violence in general. And yes the car analogy works fine you just don't want it too. If I intended to drive through a crowd with a car, the car is no more responsible for my actions then a gun would be. It would not be labeled as vehicular violence it would just be violence. Again people adding more weight to a death because of the tool used, not the intent of the user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 lulz pretty much my point though. edit to add. the critical mass people are toolbags, but that guy was nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I'm really glad that you are not in a position to influence laws. What exactly in the post you quoted did you take issue with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 What exactly in the post you quoted did you take issue with? I'm guessing it's the parts where you shit on the 1st and 2nd amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I'm guessing it's the parts where you shit on the 1st and 2nd amendments. Shit on? By saying I won't shed a tear for them censoring porn and gore. That's just, like, my opinion man, as the dude would say. And I'm entitled to it in America so, you know, fuck you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Shit on? By saying I won't shed a tear for them censoring porn and gore. That's just, like, my opinion man, as the dude would say. And I'm entitled to it in America so, you know, fuck you. You are entitled to an opinion, but stating it opens you to other peoples opinions of your opinion because they have a right to an opinion. I feel like that needs an xibit meme picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 You are entitled to an opinion, but stating it opens you to other peoples opinions of your opinion because they have a right to an opinion. I feel like that needs an xibit meme picture. You go ahead and draw up a little meme if it makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 You go ahead and draw up a little meme if it makes you feel better. I feel fine. you seem to be hurt however. I was just pointing out the wording on my own post. I am not about to try and explain the meme to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I feel fine. you seem to be hurt however. I was just pointing out the wording on my own post. I am not about to try and explain the meme to you. You arent the first person who wished they could hurt my feelings, but tis not to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 You arent the first person who wished they could hurt my feelings, but tis not to be. your sarcastic little reply seems to indicate otherwise. I was poking fun at myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 your sarcastic little reply seems to indicate otherwise. I was poking fun at myself. Find me a response I post that's not sarcastic and you might have a case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEh3Q9ARMKE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 I miss that game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.