Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Not to detract from the conversation too much (although I hate debates on abortion), but the title reminds me of those old cliche mystery announcers.

Was it really an accident or was it ... Murder?! (dun dun dun)

If we're going to bring up age it should be noted that Mccain is younger than Ron Paul.
Well anyway there shouldn't be an age cap just as there shouldn't be a law saying 'you must've been born in the U.S.'

At 9/19/08 09:18 PM, catman03 wrote: The constitution isn't god. Just because it says something doesn't make it moral. It has a lot of good ideas but we shouldn't make every day free fucking gun day just because it says we can.

I know I'm going to get flamed to death for giving any indication of support for gun control, but personally I don't think anybody should have a gun except policeman or soldiers.

Right because policemen and soldiers have NEVER abused power and have NEVER broken the law. Oh wait that's backwards.

:And even soldiers wouldn't need to exist if the world were a better place, but given that there ARE terrorists and dictators and whatnot out there we need them.
My point is this: just because not every gun owner is a murderer doesn't mean that gun control wouldn't help lower the crime rate.

Criminals get their guns from the black market and they'll continue to do this no matter what laws you pass, gun control laws only restrict the citizen.

:So no free guns for all. Why? Because if an adult wanted to right now they could go out and buy a gun, kill someone and flee the country before anyone noticed.

Replace gun with the following items and that sentence will be equally true
Knife
Rope
Blunt object
Car
etc.

:It's not even that difficult, though it would require a bit of planning beforehand. If we took away the permit system it'd be even easier. And yes guns are traceable, but shouldn't preventing crimes have higher priority than catching those who commit crimes that could be prevented?

Dude even in countries that ban guns shootings still exist, and just because you make it a bit harder for someone to get a gun doesn't mean they still won't get one or use a different weapon.

:Gun control works to a certain extent

Prove it. I've seen statistics that say it does nothing.

You know from what I heard schools allowed kids to bring in guns for the longest time, they even had hunting clubs at school (no I don't have a source for this).

Even if though the chances for accidents are very unlikely and I can't believe people are worried about teachers shooting students. Have you guys seen these schools? They have cameras in almost every classroom so if a teacher shot a student there's be video evidence. And even if they didn't there would still be lots of witnesses the gunshot sound to consider and the dead body. Not to mention that police can trace the bullet back to the teacher's gun.

Yes school shootings are stupidly rare, but still it's a very cheap solution to the problem that doesn't involve monitoring the students like hawks or something like that.

Plus it's concealed carry, no need to worry about kids freaking out about the guns.

At 8/27/08 03:53 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

However, they forget to mention how they got them. For example: If I shoot someone with a gun I stole from someone, the gun is gotten illegal. However, if the person hadn't got a gun in the first place, I couldn't have stolen it. So quite frankly, I got the gun indirectly from a legal gunstore (supposing the victim of the theft bought it there).

Certain drugs and child porn are banned in most countries but people still get them. Same thing happened with booze in the 1920s.

Just because it's contraband doesn't mean people will find it impossible to get them. They can still smuggle it in or secretly produce it in the country of choice. The only ways to completely get rid of guns are
a. Magic/Miracle
b. Convince everyone not to get one or
c. ban them and spend a lot of money trying to keep them out

A. is impossible
b. is unlikely
c. Requires a vast investment in money time and resources, and even with that, if the demand is there people will still try to get them into the country.

I think Hillary Clinton's assassin had a better shot if only he didn't blow it by taking hostages.

Ugh I can't stand people who say the constitution is irrelevant because it's over 200 years old (saying that something is old means it's irrelevant is a logical fallacy).

Just look at all the bad laws overturned as unconstitutional, recently even.

But anway the principles of free speech free press free religion right to bear arms etc. are sill relevant to this day.

Think of all the nuts that want to ban porn or video games and realize that the first amendment prevents them from doing that.

Oh and as for gun control, any types of gun control. I don't have to justify my owning of a gun you have to justify the act of taking it away from me. (I don't need it, is not a good enough reason).

Dude if the parents want their kids to go to church they'll just spread the normal Christian stuff with them at home.

Either way it's a HORRIBLE idea. You think church is bad for kids but that's just your opinion. You have no proof it's bad and even if it shouldn't be up to just one person to make such dramatic decisions for every kid in the nation.

I was going to go libertarian but I think I'm a bit too left wing. So I don't belong to a party.

You guys know how a goolge bomb works, and why 'weapons of mass destruction', 'miserable failure' and 'french military victories' do/did get funny results right?

At 8/17/08 08:16 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

At 8/17/08 07:13 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 8/17/08 07:06 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote: Next time try reading the whole article instead of just quoting the parts you like.

So that's two witnesses saying she didn't curse him out vs. one. And even if we take his word for it he cussed him out AFTER he ordered her back and arrested her. So again I ask how she was disturbing the peace.

And the fact is that she was either belligerent before he told her to watch what she was saying, or she became belligerent afterwards.

It's real simple she said fuck in a private conversation then he asked her to watch her language. She apologized and started walking away. THEN he demanded she come to him. That action doesn't seem to have any justifiable reason. After she refused THEN there was the scene.

The blame rests with the fireman in my opinion for making a scene wher eone wasn't needed. Oh and are you really going to tell me that these types of guys never lie?

It's a grey area.
Libraries have a limited budget so sometimes it's not possible to have a copy of every book their patrons might want.
Libraries are public so I don't think they should be allowed to censor though.

At 8/17/08 07:06 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote: Next time try reading the whole article instead of just quoting the parts you like.

So that's two witnesses saying she didn't curse him out vs. one. And even if we take his word for it he cussed him out AFTER he ordered her back and arrested her. So again I ask how she was disturbing the peace.

At 8/17/08 06:49 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

At 8/17/08 05:30 PM, VI-Chuckles-IV wrote: It means eventually the nation may vote someone in of another religion other than Christian.

We did. Remember JFK?

He was Catholic, I know that's a religious minority but that's still Christian.

Anyway back on topic I'm hesitant to make a guess until we know who their VPs are going to be.

But if forced, I'd say Mccain.

At 8/16/08 05:10 AM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:
Black pride isn't "I'm proud that I'm black".

No offense but I bet that some people actually mean 'I'm proud to be black'

It's not being proud of oneself. It's being proud of your heritage, and of what those before you did so that you could be what you are today.

Your heritage is also something that's entirely random. And in that last part if you want to pay respect that's fine but why make a big deal of the fact that you have the same skin color as they did?

At 8/17/08 04:41 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

At 8/17/08 04:28 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 8/17/08 04:11 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

Once again think of the case of yelling fire in a crowded theater, the Supreme Court has ruled that such an action is not covered by the freedom of speech. Why? Because such speech disturbs the peace.

Yeah because yelling fire in a crowded theatre causes a panic. Cursing doesn't.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater causes a panic, which as falls under the legal definition of disturbing the peace. Likewise the woman in this story in this story disturbed the peace. Once again speech that disturbs the peace is not protected speech.

""He said, 'You need to watch your mouth,' " Fridge said.

Perplexed by who the man was - his badge said "fire department" - Fridge offered a scant apology.

"I was like, 'Oh, OK. Sorry?' " she said.

Fridge walked away, but said the man ordered her to come back. She then protested, telling him she was having a private conversation with her mother that was none of his business. When the man ordered her to come to him and she refused, she said he pulled out his handcuffs."

So apologizing and walking away is your definition of disturbing the peace? In my opinion (and i bet legally as well) the fireman had no right to order her to come back or break out the handcuffs.

At 8/17/08 04:11 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

Once again think of the case of yelling fire in a crowded theater, the Supreme Court has ruled that such an action is not covered by the freedom of speech. Why? Because such speech disturbs the peace.

Yeah because yelling fire in a crowded theatre causes a panic. Cursing doesn't.

Also the government can already cite you for disturbing the peace with anti government speech. Why? Because you're disturbing the speech. Just the same way you can be cited for disturbing the peace with pro government speech or just about anything that disturbs the speech. Does this mean the government can cite people for anything they say? No only speech that breaks the peace.

Put up the court cases my friend because I've seen tons of protestors that could reasonably be defined as disturbing the peace.

Again not a new arguement. One person didn't say these words are obscene, society did.

The majority does not have the right to take away the rights and liberties of the minority if they did pornography would be gone.

:Now I can't find any recent polls that say society still says these are bad. I can't find any studies that have been done on it. So who knows maybe we don't feel that way anymore, unfortunately until someone does do a study on it and argue it in court these words will remain to be obscene.

Not in a legal sense.

A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Profanity does not qualify.

I don't see why something hateful or vulgar should be protected by the "freedom of speech". Should ni**er, bitch, or fuck really be included in our language?

Who the hell are you to decide? Freedom of speech means getting to say any offensive stuff I want. To give you a clue, flag burning and some Nazi rallies are protected under free speech.

:We already have words that we can use instead of these so why do they need to be here?

They don't but 'you don't need them' is not a good enough reason to ban them.

Think about if Obama or McCain came out to a speech for some black people and said "I'm really going to help you fucking ni**ers out!" I don't see in anyway how that would be acceptable. Is that something you really want to hear?

No but they have a constitutional right to say it. Just look at Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and Dave Chapelle. They're offensive but all of them are covered under freedom of speech.

At 8/17/08 01:07 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

Freedom Of Speech

not in private establishments.

Aw but if Wal-Mart didn't like her swearing in the store they could ask her to leave. If she refuses to leave they can arrest her for that.
However the fire marshal didn't work at and probably didn't own the Wal-Mart so he had no authority there (if this was a security guard the wal-mart hired then it would be a different story).

At 8/16/08 07:44 PM, hrb5711 wrote: For everyone arguing this is "freedom of speech", obscenities are not protected under the freedom of speech.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/fr ee_speech/miller.html

That case has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. Did you even read it? The case was about pornography not profanity.

At 4/6/08 04:40 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Does the 2nd ammendment allow you to have a tactical nuke in your garden?
If someone assaults you, do you have the right to use it? And how is it with biological weapons?

If you using the nuke will not harm anyone other than the assailant and/or yourself, then sure.

But considering how huge an area a nuke covers the odds of that situation happening are very insignificant.

Oh and biological weapons are internationally banned (at least by my understanding).

Although when we're talking about we means GUNS not bombs and not biological germ warfare.

It's divided because of bullshit rhetoric from both sides, a tendency to not have intelligent debate but instead shouting contests and in general differences in opinion.

The police are prepaid to their job, yes but their job is not what you think it is.

Again look up Warren v. District of Columbia

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.ht ml
http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.ht ml

Although even if it weren't true, the police cannot be there instantaneously to stop a criminal so yes we need guns for self-defense.

Oh and you may dispute the findings saying games are harmless but I think it should at least be considered that not all psychologists or scientists agree with the idea that violent video games lead to real violence (the same can't really be said for evolution).

At 3/27/08 10:40 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/27/08 10:10 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 3/27/08 09:55 PM, Grammer wrote: STATE COURTS. STATE COURTS HAVE BEEN OVERRULED.

Well yeah, no law goes directly to the supreme court first it must go through state courts and the state courts have ruled based on the U.S. (not state but the U.S.) constitution that these bills are unconstitutional.

Right, and the Supreme Court can (and most likely will) rule that the State courts are wrong, based upon the mountain of evidence that violent media should be restricted from minors.

Most of the evidence just shows that it makes kids more aggressive, and even if we ignore the fact that not all the aggressiveness they measure can translate into real world violence but there are also studies (as I've shown) that say that there is little to no link between the two.

Precedent from other states has no legal standing whatsoever. One cannot make the case for a law for California based on what Massachusetts has done... to my knowledge.

Some of those bills were very similar to other bills that were ruled unconstitutional by other states.

I'll guarantee you it will fail.

Tell me the difference between restricting the sale of pornographic material and restricting the sales of violent video games. Pornography doesn't harm a minor in any way (except perhaps psychologically), but that argument could be made for violent media as well. So what's the difference?

Pornography can be classified as obscene violence can not (in fact some of the failed bills were trying to get violence to be put under obscenity). And there's a huge matter of context between the two (looney tune violence vs. a war vs. Grand theft auto vs. three stooges whilst pornography hass pretty much the same context throughout). Oh and if I remember correctly porn is considered a legally lower form of free speech then violence.

This is why I propose a federal expansion of the FCC, to have jurisdiction over violent video games, as well.

Well don't tell me it does have jurisdicition over it then when you know it doesn't.

I never said it did. I said it should.

LOL NO IT'S NOT. State courts have given their own opinion on the matter. That's fine. I look forward to the day that the Supreme Court overrules them.

I look forward to february 31, 2009 as well.

Okay, this is just bogus. You know very well that if we can restrict the sale of pornography to minors, we can do the same to violent video games, or sexual video games, for that matter.

We all ready do restrict sexual video games but as I said sex falls under obscenity violence does not.

and why do we need government over sight of the ESRB? It works fine.

Hot. Coffee.

The fact that you cite hot coffee as one of the esrb's failings shows your ignorance on the matter.

1st off, the fact that rockstar did not reveal this to the ESRB is entirely rockstar's fault not the ESRB.

The ESRB is therefore flawed as RockStar was able to leave that bit out. If you can hide things from the ESRB, then it's not a foolproof organization, now is it?

Aye but they could've have hidden that informaiton from any ratings board now couldn't it?

2nd, there's a reason why they didn't tell ESRB about this.
You could NOT find the hot coffee scenes unless you literally hacked into the game (or downloading a mod, breaking the EULA).

It shouldn't have been in the game, period. The ESRB should've known, and if they could not have, then they are not a flawless organization.

Rockstar was supposed to tell them, they did not. Think of it as perjury, do we blame the court system or do we blame the guilty party (in this case rockstar)?

The ESRB re-rated the game Ao Rockstar made a re-call removed the scene and now it's back at an M rating.

So they could've removed it. But didn't. I see.

They didn't think anybody would've found it, since after all you had to hack into the game to find it, although they did remove it in the recall.

Oh and a little off topic but you are the first rational person I've ever met who actually wants to expand the powers of the FCC which to me is a little scary (but that's a different debate).

At 3/27/08 09:55 PM, Grammer wrote: STATE COURTS. STATE COURTS HAVE BEEN OVERRULED.

Well yeah, no law goes directly to the supreme court first it must go through state courts and the state courts have ruled based on the U.S. (not state but the U.S.) constitution that these bills are unconstitutional. Although really point to the part in the rulings where they say they make their decisions based on state constitutions and not the U.S. one.

Now why these bills haven't been brought to the supreme court I don't know. I don't know all the ins and outs of our legal system?

The evidence is consistent enough to successfully bring to the Supreme Court, if such a measure were to be challenged again.

Are you a lawyer? If not where do you get that from anyway?

State courts only have jurisdiction over the state. State courts do not control other states, and state courts have been and can be overruled by the Supreme Court. Do not tell me what the courts have said when the courts could be (and very well are) flawed.

They could be over-ruled by supreme court but none of them have. Oh and yes they only apply to their own states but states can use rulings from other states as precedent. But still you got to admire the fact that no state has agreed that the are unconstitutional. Although it looks like another bill like this is being brought up in massachuesets. I'll guarantee you it will fail.

You say it would be constitutional based on . . . what exactly? Are you a judge? You sure as hell don't have any court precedent to back up your claims.

We have an entire government agency (the FCC) to monitor the media that our children watch. I think that's a pretty damn good precedent.

The FCC is not all-powerful and they only have power over certain types of TV and radio.

This is why I propose a federal expansion of the FCC, to have jurisdiction over violent video games, as well.

Well don't tell me it does have jurisdicition over it then when you know it doesn't.

But it's still unconstitutional

LOL NO IT'S NOT. State courts have given their own opinion on the matter. That's fine. I look forward to the day that the Supreme Court overrules them.

I look forward to february 31, 2009 as well.

and why do we need government over sight of the ESRB? It works fine.

Hot. Coffee.

The fact that you cite hot coffee as one of the esrb's failings shows your ignorance on the matter.

1st off, the fact that rockstar did not reveal this to the ESRB is entirely rockstar's fault not the ESRB.
2nd, there's a reason why they didn't tell ESRB about this.
You could NOT find the hot coffee scenes unless you literally hacked into the game (or downloading a mod, breaking the EULA).
Those scenes were pretty much deleted scenes that rockstar disabled (why didn't they remove them entirely? It would've caused bugs and they were on a tight schedule for release).
The ESRB re-rated the game Ao Rockstar made a re-call removed the scene and now it's back at an M rating.

Oh and don't tell me that the ESRB should require game companies to submit everything to them, because they do. Rockstar didn't submit the hot coffee scenes, that's their fault not the esrb's.

At 3/27/08 09:49 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/27/08 09:35 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Taken directly from Ferguson

One study with a methodology that I find absurd when considering we want to see the violent effects of media on the brain, not punish those who do have such thoughts, does not hold water against the entire APA.

Although really if you think the noise blast method is effective then the Bible causes people to be aggresive Bible study

Nice try at changing the subject? I hate it when people take cheap shots at religion to try to make my argument seem inferior because "God is so much worse".

I'm not trying to change the subject. Those researchers concluded that the Bible increases aggression using the noise blast method. Now if you think the noise blast method is flawless you would have to then believe that the Bible increases aggression and thus should also be restricted.

At 3/27/08 09:31 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/27/08 09:21 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: I find it sad that you rely on just one person who is clearly biased as all hell

I admit, I am biased in favor of what the science of psychology has to say.

who only has two or three sources

More like eight or nine

that aren't himself to debunk mine.

Aren't myself? I don't make up my own sources, I find them.

Sigh you completely missed what I meant. Anderson, the guy who wrote the 'myths' of game violence, is biased and most of his sources are himself (i.e. Anderson)

Oh well I've stated repeatedly that the courts do not buy ANY of the studies and it has been ruled repeatedly that the evidence is not good enough.

The evidence is quite clear, and I am sure if the federal government made monitoring the sale of violent game under the jurisdiction of the FCC (which is very feasible), the courts wouldn't rule against the FCC or else they would be calling the FCC unconstitutional.

Federal
Communications
Commission

Video games are not communication they do not rely on broadcast or public waves therefore they do not fall under the FCCs jurisdiction (the FCC does more than just censor things you know).

At 3/27/08 09:29 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/27/08 09:13 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: They all deal with the 1st and 14th amendment not state amendments and they rely on supreme court precedent.

Precedent of what?

Case precedent. Sheesh

I could make the argument that restricting violent media is like restricting inappropriate television. You can't see XXX videos on cable, because it would be harmful to minors. Same. Damn. Thing.

But the courts have ruled repeatedly that the evidence saying games are harmful to minors

IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Can you get that through your skull? let me rpeat it.

The courts have ruled that the evidence isn't good enough.

You say it would be constitutional based on . . . what exactly? Are you a judge? You sure as hell don't have any court precedent to back up your claims.

We have an entire government agency (the FCC) to monitor the media that our children watch. I think that's a pretty damn good precedent.

The FCC is not all-powerful and they only have power over certain types of TV and radio. Movies, the internet and video games are completely unaffected by them.

That's the way it should be.

But it's still unconstitutional and why do we need government over sight of the ESRB? It works fine.