2257 Battle rages on...

[h0rnytoad1]

Still, the idea of protecting children is grand i think.

but like the old saying, good ideas, bad implementation.

[WalterB]

HT, sometimes you absolutely astound me.

As for the point you bring up Hancock, if the gun people don't care about children, that's their problem. if the gun owners would get past the knee-jerk reaction of "you're censoring my free use of guns" and start to think how guns affects others, it would make for better understanding.

Please! Where in the HELL did you get the idea that "gun people" don't care about children, or that defense of the American Constitution is a "knee-jerk reaction" to censorship.

First, I assume that, by "gun people," you mean those law abiding American citizens who believe that the U.S. Government should be supporting the 2nd Amendment to the American Constitution instead of trying to subvert the Constitutionally protected rights of those same American citizens.

Second, the "gun people," as you call them, and of which I am one, have the very protection of those children of which you speak as one of their highest goals. The very purpose of the "right to bear arms" is not only to protect the American citizenry against an overzealous and overbearing government, but to protect those same citizens against the Terrorists and other mentally unbalanced individuals who think that grabbing a gun and murdering innocent people is a valid action.

It is one valid argument that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Gun Control 4 dummies.jpg (56.84 KiB) Viewed 46 times

Third, the crimes that you hear about in Canada that have involved mass murder in the United States have never been committed by lawfully licensed concealed weapons carriers. They have been committed by off-balanced, mentally disturbed individuals who have been shuffled aside and ignored by a government that has no clue about how to determine what a problem is and then how to resolve it. Our current government (and several before it) seem to believe that your so-called "Knee-Jerk" reactions to the uninformed and hysterical of our American society is a better reaction than the intelligent and informed input of the Medical community and others who actually do know what they are talking about.

Gun Conttrol #2.jpg (32.45 KiB) Viewed 46 times

And, fourth, "censorship" has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. Period!

Gun Control #4.jpg (19.82 KiB) Viewed 46 times

If "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a concept that "others" cannot grasp, then I respectfully request that those people get a grip, get an education, and thank their lucky stars that there ARE intelligent individuals out there who still believe in the defense and protection of our country. And by extension, the protection of those very "others" who cannot grasp the concept themselves.

Personally I would like to ask that you keep your opinions to yourself on those subjects about which you appear to know absolutely nothing. However, America being a country where we stand foursquare for the right of free speech, I will only ask that you investigate and actually learn something about a subject upon which you wish to comment, or else restrain your comments about American issues which you have evidenced that you know nothing about.

And, lastly, might I remind you that this topic is about 2257 and the ramifications of same, and is not about gun control. If you, a Canadian citizen, wish to debate American gun control and constitutional rights, might I ask that you 1) start a topic about that subject, in the "Everything" forum, not in Vickys forum, and that 2) you actually learn something about the subject before you step in front of the VNA and shout your ignorance in front of the entire membership!

[stickyvicky]

Wow, I wish we had a "like" button just like facebook, lol...

[h0rnytoad1]

Walt, Hancock brought it up.

but whatever.

1st guns aren't an american thing, Walt, they are all over the world. you don't have to be an american to own a gun. so anyone can talk about them.

2nd see what i said kneejerk reaction? Going overboard much ?

[WalterB]

Handcock never said one word about any of the things you commented about in your post. Your post was entirely a figment of your imagination.

[h0rnytoad1]

I think it will never end as long as a majority of Americans think that tits cock and ass are more dangerous to to American youth and people in general than a loaded AK -47

mentions guns.

i was just making a comparison anyway.

[wshandcock]

hey guys dont want to cause argument , I am very pro second amendment and have owned rifles . my point was more to if a movie show frontal nudity it can get a R or NC 17 rating while a PG movie can have guys shooting entire city and still be PG it was no way meant to bring the gun argument into it

[wshandcock]

also want top point out I said "owned rifles " when my daughter was born my ex didn't feel comfortable having weapons in house so i git rid my last rifle and hand guns not a option in NYC

[h0rnytoad1]

very good hancock, it's just walt. he feels the need to defend his precious guns.

[wshandcock]

cool HT but I still like guns when ever I go to Vegas I usually head over the the gun store and use there range for target shooting

[h0rnytoad1]

Sure, i don't hate guns, when have i said that. But i'm sure everyone here sees both sides of the argument. Trying to get 2257 rules to stick is the same as gun control lists, some will say they are needed, others will say they feel censored or stifled by those lists.

i say you did good by removing them from your home. i wouldn't want to live in a place where you feel the need to have a gun to defend yourself against a neighbor. then your neighbor needs a gun to defend himself against you and so on and so on.

at some point you gotta ask yourself, what's the point ?

[WalterB]

It is impossible to talk sense to a nitwit

[h0rnytoad1]

Walt, buddy, it's not like i attacked you or your guns, just the stupid people who shouldn't have them in the 1st place, and even then i just expressed valid argument, there are always 2 sides to everything yunno.

but name calling, really Walt? i thought u were better than that.

[stickyvicky]

Ok bringing this thread back on topic, here is another article about 2257 with some other viewpoints...
http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php ... all&q=2257

[dave45]

Vicky said "It makes no sense whatsoever to me. If the government really gave a crap about kids at all, they would make a rule that no "pink" would be exposed anywhere on any website except in the members area. That would protect children, make parents happy, and stop all the stealing, all in one felled swoop. It's such a simple solution to to many problems, but will they do it? No, they fuck around with a useless law for 10 years that puts huge burdens on porn producers, costs a ton of money, and does not have a single benefit. People are going through surprise inspections, and paying fines and for having a part of a 2257 file mixed up, a file on a 36 year old woman who does not remotely look like she could be under 18, but a t not crossed or an i not dotted in that file and you are in big trouble."

That's what our government does, they produce nothing but law's. That mean's someone has to be hired to enforce then and find violations to pay for them. Is my thinking wrong?

BTW Vicky thank you for stopping the gun control Issue that was getting started , I was about ready to throw my 2 Penny's in then stopped. Walt's right it needs a thread of it's own. I think I'll do that now.



Dave

[h0rnytoad1]

Vicky does have good points but i don't see how it would stop the stealing

[rokkerr]

..... a rare picture of Walt as a kid with his first gun.....

[WalterB]

And guess who I was aiming at....

[stickyvicky]

Vicky does have good points but i don't see how it would stop the stealing

Because the tube sites would not be allowed to put hardcore on their sites for free. They steal it from us, and then give it away to the world for free, devaluing all porn, so that they can sell their camsite memberships and adultfriendfinder memberships and adspace. If they can say they get a million hits a day, they can charge a fortune for their banner ads. But if the government passed a law that they couldn't show hardcore for free to minors, it would put them out of business or at least hurt them seriously, cause they would have to charge a membership fee to see it or show only softcore.

[h0rnytoad1]

they'd just move their server out of the country. then its a whole new ballgame to get them shut down.

but i agree it would hurt them until then.