quote:May 9, 2002 By Kilroy Chung, Associated Press Writer SACRAMENTO -- California State Senator Don Horata (D-Alameda) proposed a new law that would ban a large numbers of high-end consumer digital cameras in California.
"We need to start thinking about the children. Before, if someone wanted to take photos exploiting children, they would have to either develop the photos themselves or take it to a lab, but with the widespread proliferation of digital cameras, child pornographers can process the photos in their own home and peddle the photos over the Internet.
"Simple point-and-shoot cameras should be enough. These advanced cameras must be kept out of the hands of civilians, as they have no purpose other than to exploit children. Who needs a Canon D30 to go to a birthday party?"
Cameras that will be banned must have a detachable Compact Flash card and at least one of the following: optical zoom of 2x or higher, manual exposure, aperture controls, and white balance. Furthermore, Compact Flash memory cards with a capacity of 10 megabytes or more will also be banned.
"No honest man needs more than a 10 Megs, and I never intended for simple civilians to have manual exposure controls on my cameras," stated Bill Kruger, the president of Sturm-Kruger Cameras, who supports the ban. However, Kruger's digital camera, the Digi-14, will be specifically exempt from the ban.
Photography enthusiasts have already begun to protest. "This law would make amateur photographers felons and would be a direct attack on the First Amendment," they complained, to which Senator Horata remarked, "They should just move to Texas."
Amateur photographers have attempted to recruit the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, which denied the request, stating that the wording of the First Amendment is ambiguous and does not actually guarantee the right to own and use a high-end digital camera.
It might help to read between the lines. My opinion on this is in the subject line. As you can see, this is a shift in my opinion as previously voiced. I was wrong.
Posted by UM. (Member # 239) on :
I have a computer. It could concievably store child pornography.
Ban. My. Computer.
I like Americans.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hmmmm, but does it really have a chance at passing, or is it just a Senator with too much time on their hands?
(....and what was your previously voiced opinion....?)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Hell, why not ban the entire Internet while they're at it? The web is constantly used to allow the distribution of child pornography -- clearly, they should shut down the Internet in order to stop the proliferation of these illegal images.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I suspect that the above article is actually a satire on gun control.
Do I win the prize?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
You do.
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Hell, why not ban the entire Internet while they're at it? The web is constantly used to allow the distribution of child pornography -- clearly, they should shut down the Internet in order to stop the proliferation of these illegal images.
^^^^^Really^^^^^
Why not ban cameras, email, the Net (as mentioned), and snail mail why you're at it. All of those can too. I have been saving money to buy a digital camera. I take really sucky photos, so I figured I could replace my head with, uh, Patrick Stewart's. That's $250 to spend on Mike and Ikes. Them things are good... anyway, the way kid's dress today I'm suprised they haven't come up with an idea to replace clothes in the US with a standard uniform. It's a wonder...
[ May 21, 2002, 18:52: Message edited by: The Defiant ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation, we have assumed control.......
Posted by UM. (Member # 239) on :
I was tired. Really.
Anyway, as we've all known, Rob is the detective master, similar to MacGyver but with more books.
Also, reading silly diatribes like The Defiant's and others is still funny, so go, misinterpret and go crazy about "the way kids dress today", really.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Oy. My head hurts...
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
I hope it's not a strategic ploy, the law proposal, so that he could get something else through, that will cause trouble in the future, while everybody's fussing over this.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
We should attack at the source. We should ban children, without them no child porno and without them no mid-drift baring clothes that could make horny men even more horny.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Mid-drift?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Many of you need to look at Rob's post.
Posted by UM. (Member # 239) on :
So, does this mean that the Liberal stronghold of Jeffdonium has effectively de-advocated gun taking-awayism?
"Who needs a Canon D30 to go to a birthday party?"
It's funny when this starts to make sense.
[ May 22, 2002, 10:30: Message edited by: UM. ]
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
Yes, any Dahm Phul can pull a trigger!
I think this man also came up with "Real men don't eat Sushi", totally unrelated to the bumper-sticker.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Now what I'm trying to determine is:
Which opinion has shifted?
What (the satire, or the original arguments now being mocked in the satire) has he now declared "stupid?"
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
UM hit it on the nose.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The only thing I'd argue is that the end result of both crimes is different. In one case, someone gets to look at a naked person. In another, he gets to kill someone.
And, hell, even the causes are different. I'd argue that there are slightly more legitimate uses for a camera than a gun, and the pro-gun peoples main argument is that they use a gun to prevent crime, which doesn't really cross.
I may be missing something, but this seems like a really bad metaphor to me.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I see.
Well, then. *ahem*
*respirator wheezes* Very good... your journey to the Dark Side has begun... *respirator wheezes*
Another Sith Lord Rises. I dub thee... Darth Jeep!
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:And, hell, even the causes are different. I'd argue that there are slightly more legitimate uses for a camera than a gun, and the pro-gun peoples main argument is that they use a gun to prevent crime, which doesn't really cross.
if you saw the FBI crime statistics (and keep in mind that the FBI is generally against civilians owning firearms of any kind) you would see that crime goes down when states have concealed carry permit laws that include mandatory training. of course, you've been brainwashed by a socialist government (and everyone knows that socialist governments are scared to the common man have a firearm) so you don't know this, and i guess you just swallow the crud that is fed to you. where is Winston Churchill when you need him? there aren't any rugged individualists in power anymore. not trying to get into an argument with you, PsyLiam (despite this being the flameboard) but you don't know what you are talking about.
AAANNNNYYYYWAAAAYYY, i thought the joke was pretty funny, but not as funny as this:
Sony Music Lobbies for Ban on Markers By Brian Briggs
Washington DC - Ralph Hughes of Sony Music testified in the Senate today urging lawmakers to enact legislation which would ban felt tip markers. "These innocuous looking writing instruments are the scourge of our society," he said holding up a Sharpie. "Not only can this black stick of death be used to violate the DMCA, but it could also be used to write the instructions to incubate the anthrax virus."
Hughes did concede that a marker had some legitimate uses, but he cited several examples of dangerous and illegal use of the markers which "clearly overshadow any justifiable purposes."
Man escapes prison with felt-tip marker by drawing a fake mustache on himself and fooling guards. Snorting felt tip markers leading cause of death among teens who die snorting felt tip markers. A terrorist could sketch a knife on Post-it note and hijack the plane with the picture. A baby with a marker once ruined a perfectly good sweater.
In response to the Senator Fritz Hollings introduced the Hollings' Felt Tip Marker Family Safety Act. "Never have the dangers been so clear and the solution been so evident. This legislation will protect the children of our country in the wake of September 11th and the release of Celine Dion's "A New Day has Come" CD.
"Some citizens may have to switch to pencils or ball point pens," Hollings continued, "but that's a small price to pay for the security of our great nation."
Many pundits were surprised by the Hollings bill. "Normally Senator Hollings only introduces legislation when it's in support of Disney. This support of the Sony Corporation is a welcome change and shows the bi-partisanship of the Senator."
Tom Stephens of the Sanford marker company testified in support of markers, "I spent all last night trying to think of a proposal that was more ridiculous, but I kept drawing a blank."
[ May 22, 2002, 19:14: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
You realize, of course, that these ha ha exaggerated copyright stories are probably going to look downright mundane someday. We've already got banned T-shirts.
[ May 22, 2002, 20:42: Message edited by: Sol System ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, goody, another of those "Wah, this is the Socialist States of America, we all need to form militias and fight off the evil, evil government" types.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Midriff or mid-drift, tis all the same thing when the lowly whale wears a tube top or pencil thin lady wear's a size .002 T-shirt.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
A small-calibre T-Shirt?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
My wife has a couple of those.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Can you take some photos of her wearing them before cameras are banned ... ?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Why bother, when I have that topless shot of her in the pool? 8)
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Hey VP can this be a new capcom?
[ May 24, 2002, 06:31: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
This could be a new contest: who's got the best nude shots of a significant other, current or former. Mind you, I've got some of current, & some of 2 formers (including one who apparently in a ninternet model now) as well as some "auxiliary women." Whee. I=Pimp.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
We know.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No...no, you really DON'T.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Nor do we wish to.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Interesting idea, but a) it'd be easy to fake - plenty of amateur model photos on the internet already, how do you prove that you actually know/knew the person depicted? Also, b) Charles takes a dim view of pictures with risque content being posted here: as MIB discovered to his cost; we hardly want to descend to the level of the SFA Forums, do we?
Then there's the moral implications. Has the person(s) granted you permission to publicise the material? Do you feel that, if you're no longer associated with them, it's quite all right to publish them? Nope, best to just let the idea die quietly, Shikky.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Not to wander off of this facinating tangent, but...
quote: you've been brainwashed by a socialist government (and everyone knows that socialist governments are scared to the common man have a firearm) so you don't know this, and i guess you just swallow the crud that is fed to you.
I really am slightly amazed here. But if I have indeed been brainwashed, then thank god there are people like you to save me. Praise the lord indeed!
quote:where is Winston Churchill when you need him?
Dead. Like all evil right-wing people.
quote: there aren't any rugged individualists in power anymore. not trying to get into an argument with you, PsyLiam (despite this being the flameboard) but you don't know what you are talking about.
And, not to get into an argument with you, Edi, but you have even less idea of what you are talking about. I wasn't making any sort of comment on whether guns prevent crimes or not. I was merely saying that the alleged main point of civilians owning guns is that it cuts down on crime, whereas the alleged main aim of a camera is to take photos of people and objects, and that those two design requirements do not really mesh enough to allow for a metaphor such as this to make sense.
And, of course, the original gun ban came in under the Tories. Labour merely extended it after they came to power. But that's probably just brainwashing at work again.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Except for the fact that they both can be used for differing ends. The item, in and of itself, is harmless, it is the people that make them item harmful or not.
Cigarette lighters can be used to start fires that can keep you warm, or burn down a forest and homes. I have seen a TV remote used as a weapon, a woman threw it at her large son when he was getting in to her face, took a gouge of skin out of him.
I know it is the usual fall back, the people make the gun kill, not the gun itself, and most dislike that fall back. The only thing is, it is true with almost all items.
If a person doesn't have a gun, then a ballbat, with a nail driven through it as an option, or a lead filled people, or a fist.
The camera, can't use a digital, so we go with a Polariod 1 Setp and a scanner, then they get banned and we use a standard 35mm with our in home dark room and someone else's scanner....
Why educate when you can ban???
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
The difference with a gun is that it has no other use. A tv remote turns your tv off, well I guess you could do that with your gun but only once, the remote can turn it back on again.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
A baseball bat has no other use but to smack things with. A knife has no other use but to cut things with.
How about a bow and arrows? How about swords?
No points awarded.
Abort/Retry/Fail?
Actually, I have used my gun for other purposes than to kill. I have used it to test my hand steadiness and aim and eyesight. I have also used guns to make many small recreational holes in a large number of nonliving objects. I have also seen one used to slay a hazardous (rabid) animal, thus protecting local human and nonhuman life and preventing the spread of a fatal disease.
Therefore -10 points for perpetuating an inaccurate stereotype.
Posted by The Ulcer Mongoose (Member # 239) on :
Your examples are weapons. Sure an Amraam has no other purpose than to blow up Talibans. What's your point?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'd like to see a battle fought where the only weapon is lead-filled people...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Pardon me old man, it's nothin' personal, understan' but I've just gotta run this lead pipe on someone...
I could old the camera buy the starp and beat people too....
It is truly a lethal weapon....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
But that's just it. My first two examples are NOT just weapons. (Ask a baseball player or a butcher)
My second two examples ARE weapons, JUST weapons, and yet they're perfectly all right.
Therefore both aspects of the "it only has one use" argument are dispelled.
Posted by The Ulcer Mongoose (Member # 239) on :
I could concievably kill my family with celery. I know that's your point, I'm just wondering where the argument is that your rebutting to.
Perhaps the notion that a Baseball bat is designed to hit baseballs and yet can kill people, while a gun is designed to kill people and yet can save a population from the aliens in ID4 is the sticking point.
Regardless, a gun is designed to kill, and whether or not that's is use, that's what it's intent is.
That's why the article is inanalogous. Sure cameras can make child pornography, but the design specs at the Kodiac design firm didn't include a "Child Pornographer XV-750" as a priority design useage. Guns are designed to kill a dude. There's why the article isn't reason enough for Snay to become all silly like he has been.
[ May 25, 2002, 12:42: Message edited by: The Ulcer Mongoose ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:I'm just wondering where the argument is that your rebutting to.
Dude, are you high? It's right above my post!
A gun is designed to propel a small projectile (not always lethal - rubber bullets) with a certain amount of force and accuracy. A well-designed gun fulfils this task very well.*
This design can be put to several different uses. The use you choose determines what the gun does.
As with any tool, it can be used, properly or improperly, in accordance with law and in abeyance of it, for good or for ill purpose.
As I said before, knives are designed to be effective killing instruments. It's inherent, as much as it is in a gun. More so with swords (special knives designed even more primarily for combat), and bows and arrows. Therefore the "use" argument is null.
*Some guns (starter pistols, for one) are designed specifically NOT to fire projectiles.
[ May 25, 2002, 12:55: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by The Ulcer Mongoose (Member # 239) on :
Most certainly.
Re: I am high. Not the gun advocateur.
One is intentionally good, but can be used for evil. One is intentionally evil but can be used for good. Fundamentially different.
But, guns for whomever wants them. Who am I to argue, so I won't.
[ May 25, 2002, 12:57: Message edited by: The Ulcer Mongoose ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
This is getting too funny man.....
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:A knife has no other use but to cut things with.
You can butter things with one. I guess they don't let you use knives too often.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, yes, but you have to cut the stick of butter first...
a lead filled people
Didn't ancient Rome have this problem?
One is intentionally good, but can be used for evil. One is intentionally evil but can be used for good. Fundamentially different.
An inanimate object can neither be good or evil, regardless of the intended purpose when it was designed. We've been over this.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Well, yes, but you have to cut the stick of butter first...
No you don't you can scrape the butter off the stick.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Much like skinning an animal, which a human is...
Damn, you are a barbarian....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
What argument? My argument?
I'm really not following your logic. But when you are arguing with someone who has apparently convinced himself that the primary purpose behind most gun designs is NOT to kill things, then I don't see what point there is in anything.
And ignoring knives (which are either primarily weapons or eating devices, or half way), and baseball bats (which have been used as weapons by many), I'm still not sure how you're equating a gun with a camera. I have yet to hear of any large scale riots where people were battered to death with Kodaks.
(Stupid forgetting word fingers...)
[ May 26, 2002, 18:25: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
Just a jumble of random thoughts here, not really directed at anybody in particular:
And yet cameras and the pictures they have taken have created situations that have nearly started WW3 on several occasions.
Used in particular ways, it's clear that a camera can destroy lives just as effectively as a bullet. It just does so in a different manner.
Take for example the aftermath of the Rodney King beating a decade ago. A camera had nothing to do with that, right?
The problem with the camera metaphor is that the Major Purpose of a gun is to kill or wound people. The Major Purpose of a camera is to take pictures. That's the inconsistancy giving the analogy a greasy taste to some of you.
Side-stepping this by saying things like "But you could use a gun as a paperweight so your Hustler collection won't blow away" is just silly, because it's obvious that while you could use it for that, that is not what it was made for at the slave factory. It's a kind of semantic obfuscation, and I think it's dishonest.
(edited for hideous spelling. Twice.)
[ May 26, 2002, 00:12: Message edited by: thoughtcriminal84 ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I'd like to point out that there's no way one can successfully utilize the term "semantic obfuscation" without it sounding all naughty-like.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:An inanimate object can neither be good or evil, regardless of the intended purpose when it was designed.
*Sigh*
"Intended purpose" is what this argument is all about.
quote:And yet cameras and the pictures they have taken have created situations that have nearly started WW3 on several occasions.
Ironically enough, those cameras are the property of the U.S. military.
quote:The problem with the camera metaphor is that the Major Purpose of a gun is to kill or wound people.
That is, unless you are fortunate enough to live in Omega's or First of Two's little world.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
They use their guns to masturbate. Except Omega doesn't own one, so he uses his father's.
Guns ARE built to kill. Pretending otherwise is stupid. No one says they AREN'T around to kill. They're built to kill and to do so very effectively with the assorted varieties of ammunition. What the gun is used for -- mowing down innocents in a resteraunt, or shooting down intruders -- makes people like or dislike it, not what it is built to do.
Shooting some guy who cuts you off in the middle of traffic isn't an appropriate use of a gun. Some guy kicks in your door and points a shotgun at you, that's a different story. It's all about how and for what you use a gun for. If guns themselves were evil, we'd be disarming the police & the military ...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Although there IS something to be said for going back to the gladius & the pilum...
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Now what was this thread about at first? Something about cheese, or chalupas, or cameroni? But who cares?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Jeeeezus! Nothing worse then newbies who think they're funny ...
If you don't know what the thread was about, its not hard to figure it out. It'll take you about ten minutes to read through all the posts.
Posted by thoughtychops (Member # 480) on :
quote: I'd like to point out that there's no way one can successfully utilize the term "semantic obfuscation" without it sounding all naughty-like.
Yep. I was watching "Where the Boys Aren't 13" at the time. But the context is good, I think.
Damn fine background noise when you're discussing such weighty matters as gun control.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Jeff, are you ever going to get off of this boat called ALLNEWBIESMUSTDIE? It's not making anyone think you have a bigger penis (and nor is this sudden urge to kill deer with a gun, rather than a vehicle).
Posted by The Ulcer Mongoose (Member # 239) on :
TD: Chalupas? Haha! Chalupas are crazy down there! That's not what the thread was about, but certainly in can seem like it, what with all these silly topic changes, like when we changed from guns to guns, and then from guns to guns! That, my friends, is a lot of off-topicness. But, we'll probably talk about chalupas next!
Chalupa: Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, like I'm the only one here who wants to execute all the newbies ...
... I just make fun of them, not unlike Lee or UM.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
Man, them Chalupas are look mighty tasty! What was in them?
Posted by thoughtychops (Member # 480) on :
Gun Oil. 'Cause they're gunslinger chalupas.
I can actually hear the commercial. Jesus.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
What the hell is a chalupa? I kept seeing them on the buffet in Mexico, but I didn't feel confident enough to try one.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
It's usually a few hours on the toilet that evening.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
All of those can too. I have been saving money to buy a digital camera. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I take really sucky photos, so I figured I could replace my head with, uh, Patrick Stewart's. That's $250 to spend on Mike and Ikes. Them things are good... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
anyway, the way kid's dress today I'm suprised they haven't come up with an idea to replace clothes in the US with a standard uniform. It's a wonder...![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
if you saw the FBI crime statistics (and keep in mind that the FBI is generally against civilians owning firearms of any kind) you would see that crime goes down when states have concealed carry permit laws that include mandatory training. of course, you've been brainwashed by a socialist government (and everyone knows that socialist governments are scared to the common man have a firearm) so you don't know this, and i guess you just swallow the crud that is fed to you. where is Winston Churchill when you need him? there aren't any rugged individualists in power anymore. not trying to get into an argument with you, PsyLiam (despite this being the flameboard) but you don't know what you are talking about. 