Joheines writes: "I don't think I will ever understand you Americans. Everybody can own weapons because of some law passed 300 years ago (oh, and try to change that and you'll feel the power of millions of Americans and the NRA). But then, when your politicians suppress your free speech, it's all about what some conservative majority thinks is good for the others: 7 words that may not be mentioned on national TV, Internet censure in public libraries and schools, no naked women on TV and so on and on. And no one seems to care.
I spent 6 months in the US and let me tell you, that was enough for me!"
Nearly all issues relating to what you can and cannot say, etc., from your points above, have been passed by liberal congresses here, not conservative ones. This bill is being pushed by a liberal. Amazing? Not really, not if you understand the liberal agenda. People need to be taken care of because they cannot take care of themselves. And they need to be cared for by liberals. Hence welfare (sic), etc.
Which is not to say they are necessarily wrong in all cases, mind you, be even when they are right, I refuse to allow them to usurp my rights.
As for the bit about the founding fathers, if you would like to read "The Federalist Papers" which are a collection of letters, pamphlets, flyers, etc., exchanged by the signators of the US Constitution, you will find that the actual reason behind the right to have arms is litterally so that the public could arm themselves on a par with the government. The idea was that the kind of abuses perpatrated by King George's government could not be duplicated at a later time by a US Government.
Given fiascos like Waco, Montana and many others, one can, almost, argue that they were 100% right. I also find the militia movement here to be very troubling, none-the-less.
Elvum writes: "...It may seem harsh, it may be an infringement of Mr Foo's rights, it may even be an infringement of Mr Bar's rights, but the state has to make an inadequate decision and set a meaningless number and say that once children's age has passed that number they can do this / that."
Yes! Me too! I want the state to make my decisions for me. I want the state to decide for me what is good, right and wholesum! I want to be protected from myself! I want to live in a police state and have big brother protect me from everything. I want to be controlled.
Hell, I don't even want to have non-button down collars on my shirts - leave things flapping on their own like that, uncontrolled!
RISCy Business writes:...it's not enforced censorship. Nor is it a way to control the media. It's a way to let the media regulate itself...
I will use my examples from the motion picture industry, but this all applies to music, games, etc., et al.
The largest consumer of most action/adventure movies are teens and preteens. The bill requires that you must lable these as being too violent for teens and preteens and then enforce their non-attendance of this film, thereby destroying your audiance. This is not control of the media, you say? Sure. This is not censorship? Sure, sure.
...and enable parents to effectively control what their kids listen to. If anything, it gives more power to the people, forgive the corny phrase, rather than takes freedom away...
I need a rating system to decide if "Death Squad from Hell MCXIV" is something I want my kids to see? The rating system will somehow enable me? And what if I did want my child, for whatever reason, to see it?
...It doesn't say 'if you get this and this rating, you can't sell it here there and there.' It says 'you have to label your product with it's rating in a clear manner...
Thereby allowing it to be shown anywhere and viewed by no one in it's target audiance. Thereby making it not worth making in the first place, Thereby censoring by forcing the industry to not create something without legally forcing them not to. Which is still censorship. Did IQs suddenly go down while I was away?"
Slashdot Mirror
I spent 6 months in the US and let me tell you, that was enough for me!"
Nearly all issues relating to what you can and cannot say, etc., from your points above, have been passed by liberal congresses here, not conservative ones. This bill is being pushed by a liberal. Amazing? Not really, not if you understand the liberal agenda. People need to be taken care of because they cannot take care of themselves. And they need to be cared for by liberals. Hence welfare (sic), etc.
Which is not to say they are necessarily wrong in all cases, mind you, be even when they are right, I refuse to allow them to usurp my rights.
As for the bit about the founding fathers, if you would like to read "The Federalist Papers" which are a collection of letters, pamphlets, flyers, etc., exchanged by the signators of the US Constitution, you will find that the actual reason behind the right to have arms is litterally so that the public could arm themselves on a par with the government. The idea was that the kind of abuses perpatrated by King George's government could not be duplicated at a later time by a US Government.
Given fiascos like Waco, Montana and many others, one can, almost, argue that they were 100% right. I also find the militia movement here to be very troubling, none-the-less.
Jackster
Yes! Me too! I want the state to make my decisions for me. I want the state to decide for me what is good, right and wholesum! I want to be protected from myself! I want to live in a police state and have big brother protect me from everything. I want to be controlled.
Hell, I don't even want to have non-button down collars on my shirts - leave things flapping on their own like that, uncontrolled!
Jackster
Say rather, by requiring a minimum IQ?
Jackster
I will use my examples from the motion picture industry, but this all applies to music, games, etc., et al.
The largest consumer of most action/adventure movies are teens and preteens. The bill requires that you must lable these as being too violent for teens and preteens and then enforce their non-attendance of this film, thereby destroying your audiance. This is not control of the media, you say? Sure. This is not censorship? Sure, sure.
...and enable parents to effectively control what their kids listen to. If anything, it gives more power to the people, forgive the corny phrase, rather than takes freedom away...
...It doesn't say 'if you get this and this rating, you can't sell it here there and there.' It says 'you have to label your product with it's rating in a clear manner...
I need a rating system to decide if "Death Squad from Hell MCXIV" is something I want my kids to see? The rating system will somehow enable me? And what if I did want my child, for whatever reason, to see it?
Thereby allowing it to be shown anywhere and viewed by no one in it's target audiance. Thereby making it not worth making in the first place, Thereby censoring by forcing the industry to not create something without legally forcing them not to. Which is still censorship. Did IQs suddenly go down while I was away?"
The Jackster,