Stunned into silence!!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If you want to stop violence, stop the media from propagating it. The bombardment of killings or other acts of violence in the media is a major contributing factor to the level of violence in our society today.[/quote]

It has nothing to do with the media, people have always been violent. If you want to do something about it, lower taxes, so one parent can afford to stay home and raise their kids properly.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me

Compromising the right position only makes you more wrong.
 
Shin-Tao, my concern would be that this 'anti' would be informant-type material. If I were you, I'd keep my mouth pretty much shut around that individual, especially about the subjects you're most passionate about and that he's so horribly brainwashed the wrong way. Yeah, I like to make a convert as well as the next one, but this is someone who knows your name. All it takes is one concerned 'anonymous tip' to Child Protctive Srvices for, say, firearms accessible to children, and your life will become hell. Pure hell.

If I were you, I'd regard this individual as not a potential friend or convert, but a true enemy.

Just my $0.02

--Denise
Oh, to answer your question, that level of idiocy is rare in my acquaintance, but in hob-nobbing with fellow homeschoolers, I tend to be among freedom-loving folks. :)
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 4V50 Gary:
Al,

Being very aware and appreciative of the First Amendment, I'm not calling for the media to be regulated by the Government. Nowhere in my statement have I proposed for the Government, whether Fed or local, to impose controls on the media.[/quote]

Okay, point taken. I'm just so used to seeing "people shouldn't..." followed up by demands for more laws, that I tend to assume that that is the intent unless it's explicitly stated otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Rather, my position is that the media shouldn't use the First Amendment as a shield or excuse for propagating violence on our society. The media needs to recognize its responsibility and regulate itself accordingly. Advocating for private attorneys to sue the media on behalf of victims and their relatives is but another means of killing two birds with one stone (take care of the media moguls who would see us disarmed and keep the attorneys busy and off gun manufacturer's back).
[/quote]

Well, I'd agree that there are things I'd rather not see published or broadcast, but I disagree with the notion that the media shouldn't use the first amendment as a shield . The whole _point_ of a right is being free to do as you wish without having to explain or justify your decision to anyone.

As for whoever mentioned kiddy-porn (and I knew _somebody_ would), if its produced using actual kids, THAT is a crime (kids being unable to consent by law) and can and should be punished accordingly. But what about drawings? What about computer-generated images indistinguishable from photos but which show kids who don't even exist?

Disgusting? Yes. Depraved? Yes. But no real children were involved in making it, so there's no harm _there_, and if you want to argue "socially redeeming value" or the lack thereof, no matter where you draw the line, there are plenty of people willing to narrow the bounds of acceptability even farther.
 
Shin,

I feel for you...have that person watch "A Clockwork Orange" over and over until they get it. It's not about rape and violence, like many anti's (not just gun anti's) think.

When Anthony Burgess wrote that book in 1962 (the film wasn't done by Kuprick until 1972) He had an eerily accurate idea about what society would breed, as well as the posthumous solutions that same society would conjure to try to rectify the problems. Many of Burgess's books deal with the same theme of post-Orwellian philosophy.

I truly feel that many people would rather get an anti-violence chip installed in their head rather than spend the time actually thinking about the events that have made them so complacent. Their fear of reality funnels them to the popular views...ala communism, where your battles are fought for you by someone or some govt entity that has no direct interest in your welfare.

------------------
"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds..."
-Albert Einstein
 
Unfortunately, the truth is out:
THE WORLD IS FILLED WITH USELESS PEOPLE.
That THIS one; born an American(?); has abdicated their right to self-determination; acts as though they've just emerged from the womb; AND naively wishes for parental control reflects a GROSS developmental immaturity.
Consider this- WE'RE SURROUNDED BY THEM.
The first one is usually a shock; eventually you'll get used to them. Think of yourself a prospector; looking for them little nuggets of intelligence. Or even a gem to admire. :) There's more to this theory; not here; not now. :)

------------------
NRA LIFE MEMBER
ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM
 
Tamara--
Let me get this straight... This is, like, an adult? Someone who oh, say, votes? Perhaps it's time to stop re-arranging the deck furniture and lower the lifeboats...
That's the part that scares me, too. I really wish people had to demonstrate some knowledge of current events, and prove they had a stake in the community where they vote ( like having a wife & kids, paying taxes, etc. ) before voting. Yes, as a Southerner I know the sorry history of literacy tests, and poll taxes, but something needs to be done.
Though in the case of the above-mentioned co-worker it probably wouldn't work; she's dangerous, maybe deluded, but would likely pass elegibility tests...
..oh, well!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The whole _point_ of a right is being free to do as you wish without having to explain or justify your decision to anyone.
[/quote]

Al,

Not really. What it sounds like you are talking about is "freedom without responsibility". I certainly hope I am incorrect in my reading of your post.

Because true freedom is the result of absolute responsibility.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

See The Legacy of Gun Control film at: www.cphv.com

Do it for the children...
 
As for whoever mentioned kiddy-porn (and I knew _somebody_ would), if its produced using actual kids, THAT is a crime (kids being unable to consent by law) and can and should be punished accordingly.

I agree. Let's prosecute them... for fraudulently entering into a contract with a minor. Because BY YOUR DEFINITION, you couldn't get them for kiddie-porn. "Freedom of speech". You understand, I'm sure.

Society needs rules of conduct. The First Amendment cannot be "absolute". And if you have limits, then you must enforce them. Al, you seem to want it BOTH ways. You don't get it that way.

------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken
 
sbryce/Denise had the most penetrating evaluation of that person's comment about microchips to control violence. Such people are the enemy and potential informants. They are *dangerous*. Yes, an anonymous phone call from them and a gun owner will be an ex-gun owner and persecution will then get worse.

Better to take George's idea and make a list for eventual implementation if worse goes to unbelievably bad. In sympathy to John Ross, we may be closer to needing his solution than we fear.
 
Spazz: Thanks for bringing up "A Clockwork Orange".. that was the first thing to come to my mind too.

I also recommend that people read the book as it has a little more redeeming message and a little less graphic "ultra-violence" than Kubricks film... not that I don't LOVE the film.

I also second the recommedation to simply steer clear of this person.. they are dangerous.
 
As mentioned earlier by other members, the First Amendment is not an absolute right and there have been limitations placed upon it. Certain speech is not protected including "kiddie porn", speech intended to incite and likely to incite imminent violence, fighting words, etc. Other limitations include time, place or manner restrictions on demonstrations. The list goes on...

Returning to the issue of the media, lest we forget newspaper owner/editor William Randolph Hearst who whipped this nation into a frenzy with his slogan, "Remember the Maine!" The Spainards were willing to cooperate with the US to investigate the cause of the Maine's destruction and even offered to pay reparations if not guilty. That didn't matter to Hearst who saw it as an opportunity to make America a global empire. More recently, the media's biased reporting of the Rodney King incident contributed to the riots which followed. Oh sure the media isn't responsible. I for one learned not to trust the media years ago.

While freedom of the press is a good thing, it is no different from any other right recognized by the Bill of Rights - it must be handled with responsibility.
 
I will definately heed the words of the council and no longer discuss such things with said "person".
I knew I wouldn't when I walked away. There is no use talking to a staggering fool.

Microchips! What a strong and wise populace we have!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LawDog:
This person wants something made by Microsoft interfacing with his bio-harddrive???[/quote]

If this were the case, we'd have nothing to fear. Any such chip manufactured to Microsloth specifications would, by definition, always be in a state of reboot. Rendering the victim....er, user temporarily 'off line'. So obviously, this chip should first be implanted in all sitting, and aspiring politicians. Problem solved.
 
George Hill,

5.56 chips? Good one. I'll have to use that sometime.

I use a variation of that when I think of someone who should be removed (permanently) from society. I say "(Their behavior) comes from being mentally off balance. I can fix that for them, real cheap! I have the perfect tool for the job. It inserts a 158-grain balance weight right behind the right ear." :D

------------------
Remember, just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
 
I'm a really ugly old man so I would like a
chip implanted in all beautiful women so they
would submit to me.!!!! As long as we are
dreaming.!!!
 
Sorry, bullet44, but I gotta feeling that all they would do is program YOU to dig other ugly old men :eek:

[This message has been edited by F=ma (edited October 22, 2000).]
 
Kamakaze: There's NO governor on the engines of either my car or my pickup truck( both Corvairs)!
crankshaft
paranoia: the only way to go when the algores and rosies are out to get You!
 
Has this person ever served in the military?

Or ever been in a situation where a BG was breaking into their house, I wonder?

Santanta was/is right about Digital Angel. It's being implemented as we speak?? Latest I hear was it was being targeted for the Blue Chip crowd in NYC. With features such as telemetry, GPS, transceiver, data storage/collection, and secure data activities with it.

Small bio-chips are already being used to treat ailments with brain/motor control problems in some people. This is the next logical step. Think of it like this.
How did the first IC come to be? The look at the computers we have in our homes now, all in a few decades.
The level of knowledge doubles every couples of years now. Where will that curve be at in 6 months?

As for your colleague at work, I agree with the notion that this person is potentially dangerous to you, in a way. I also feel sorry for them, for they're willing to become a slave, simply because they think they'll be safe from something if only....

But they're not willing to get their hands dirty doing the protection work personally.
A coward.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John/az2:

Al Mondroca wrote: The whole _point_ of a right is being free to do as you wish without having to explain or justify your decision to anyone.

Al,

Not really. What it sounds like you are talking about is "freedom without responsibility". I certainly hope I am incorrect in my reading of your post.

Because true freedom is the result of absolute responsibility.
[/quote]

Yes, you are misreading me. What I mean by that is: Your right to private property means (or should mean) that you can use it as you see fit without having ask permission of anyone else or explain your reasons. Your right to own a gun means (or should mean) that you may buy, own, sell, and carry any gun you like for any reason you like, without having to ask anyone else's permission, or explain yourself. (If anyone else can demand that you explain _why_ you're doing something before you're allowed to do it--or continue doing it, if you're already engaged in it--you're not exercising a right, you're being allowed to exercise a PRIVILEGE.)

Obviously, if you harm someone else in the course of exercising your rights (by shooting someone, say) you can be called to account for _that_, and may be punished for doing so unless you had just cause (defending yourself). Otherwise, your right to act is all the justification you need.

The notion that "with rights comes responsibility" is true--as long as the "responsibility" involved consists of not threatening or harming another person unjustly. But too often the "responsibility" being demanded consists of kissing the ass of the authorities or paying lip service to fashionable ideas in order to be ALLOWED to exercise your rights.

So--my RIGHTS need no excuse.

For that matter--and this isn't aimed at you, by the way, this post just seems like a good place to add it--I have a canned response to the whining from gun-grabbers who say "Don't you recognize any limits on your gun rights?"

Yes I do. I agree that I may not shoot people for calling me names, cutting me off in traffic, holding stupid opinions, or for anything short of offering me an immediate, credible threat of serious injury or death. I agree that I may not wave my gun around in public, either negligently or intentionally, and that I may not claim "I didn't know it was loaded" or "I didn't mean to" and expect that to cut me any slack if I accidentally shoot someone. I agree that I may not fire my weapon inside the city limits, or indeed anywhere that a bullet could potentially hurt another human being, except in a emergency when I am defending my life or the life of another. I agree that if I do any of the above, I have no right to resist when the police come to arrest me for trial.

What I do _not_ agree to is the notion that my purchase, sale, ownership or carrying of a weapon is an acceptable subject for legislation of any kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top