[QUOTE="makingmusic476"]But smoking is a whole nother issue. Smokers also infringe upon the rights of others to be in a smoke-free environment. Playing games in the comfort of one's home effects no one other then whomever is palying the game. Why should this game be banned? Like someone said earlier, AO would be sufficient, if it is truly necessary, but outright banning? Hardly.PhoebusFlows
Well I could argue that releasing games like Manhunt 2 (oh there will be more of its kind around the corner you watch) will infect and degrade the collective consciousness of the nation's teens. We put MA18+ label on GTA San Andreas, but lets be honest, you and me know a ton of kids and teens that played it anways. I dont see this being different from Manhunt 2. People want to ban smoking from places (not the right to smoke, just the setting) to protect other people. And I think people want to ban or at least make Manhunt 2 AO rating, to protect others. One is a chemical in the air, another is a form of media, but I think they are open to equal regulation -- within reason.
And look at what Austrailia did, they banned it, because they were looking to protect people. I understand and agree we have a right to enjoy stuff inside our homes, but I have provided plenty of examples of media "alterations" in the US. So there really is no point in worrying or arguing, because it happens anyways and we are okay as a nation.
And as to our system of government, our rights have been continually encroached upon since it's inception. Lincoln, FDR, and the latter Bush are some of the finest examples of this. Whether it be the rights of the states, the rights of the local governments, or the rights of the individual, the federal government has been continually degrading these rights that the founding fathers held so dear.makingmusic476
Forgetting Bush for a second, do you have examples of Lincoln and FDR and what they did? I believe whatever transgressions the governemnt has committed are far outweighed by the good they have done for us.
FDR and Lincoln did far more to increase the power of the federal government, more specifically the role of the presidency, than any other presidents to date. FDR did this by instituting many federal work programs to help get us out of the depression. Many of these federal programs ere later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and overall his plans took many powers away from the state and local governments, increasing the federal government's strength many times over. His theory was that we could spend our way out of the great depression. His work programs were designed to create new jobs and use federal money to build things like parks, and other things, resulting in an influx of cash into the economy. While this did help some, it ultimately proved futile, and WWII ultimately saved us. The depression was a global depression, so the efforts of one nation wouldn't help much, and it wasn't until the entire world was forced to increase manufacturing (war goods, etc.) that the economy finally started to really improve.Â
Licoln, however, was a much worse offender. He started an illegal war by invading a foreign nation without the consent of congress. He would not allow Congress to meet until two months after his militia force of 75,000 was sent deep into Virginia and the fighting had commenced, therefore Congress was never allowed to officially declare war on the Confederacy. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, resulting in the unconstitutional arrest of over 13,000 if they were so much as suspected of having even slight southern sympathies. He declared martial law in three states, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. Actually, his arrest of congressmen in Maryland and Kentucky prevented the states from ever officially seceding from the union.Â
Then there was the entire West Virginia controversy. IF the Southern states did not have the right to secede, then that would mean that any congressional sessions held wouldn't be able to fulfill the proper quorum, without the Southern congressmen being present. Therefore, any legislation passed during the War Between the States would have been unconstitutional and West Virginia would be an illicit stae, and it should've been reformed with Virginia after the war. Conversely, if the states were allowed to secede, than the quorum necessary for a session of congress would've been lower, and the Southern congressmen would not have been needed to pass legislation, and an annexation of West Virginia by the US would've been valid. So, in effect, the US congresional hearings between 1861 and 1865 validated the Southern secession movement, as they showed that the Southern States were, in fact, no longer legally part of the US.
Log in to comment