2257 arguments

Useless · 2005-06-24, 11:49 AM

Linkster has brought up the most important point, which has been mentioned previously, but isn't really resonating the way it should. They aren't going to go out and just knock on random doors. If anyone ever gets a visit it will be for a damned good reason. Most of us can go on the way we always have, without a single piece of documentation, but those who promote questionable content will always be at risk.

Wenchy · 2005-06-24, 12:43 PM

Something has been bothering me and it's high time someone said it. The absolute bottom line is that the people the DOJ aimed the new regs at are not, have never been, and will never be the least bit interested in 2257, documentation, or legal content. I keep getting hung up on the idea that this was all done under the umbrella of keeping CP off the Net... but the CPers don't give two shits about laws or they wouldn't do what they do in the first place! Did they honestly think that creating a new set of regulations was going to suddenly scare the CPers into getting legal? Surely even our beloved gov'ment isn't that dense.

If what you say is true, UW, they didn't need this whole bloody shitstorm to accomplish their goals. Last time I knew anything about it, they don't call up the CP assholes who are under investigation and say, "Hi, this is the FBI. We're on our way over to bust you and all your fellow scumbags. Please be certain there is someone home when we knock on the door. Oh, and we'll need access to your computer while we're there so make sure the chair is empty."

Criminals are going to be criminals regardless of what laws/regs are on the books. All they've done is create a huge fucking construction zone on the adult internet commerce highway. Wonder how long it will take them to figure it out?

docholly · 2005-06-24, 01:12 PM

Since this is SinCity and its a 24/7 town, 9pm-4am are 'normal business hours'. on the remote possiblity that the doj should show up at my 'office' by the time they get to the back where its located they will be very mellow off the ganja contact high and the wicked back beat of the reggae band that plays there.

|rasta|

Useless · 2005-06-24, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wenchy

If what you say is true, UW, they didn't need this whole bloody shitstorm to accomplish their goals.

You are absolutely correct, Wenchy. This new and unimproved version of the regs was completely unnecessary. I've always thought it to be a completely political move, just to show the right wing constituency that the DOJ is doing something for them. Nothing more. What their intentions are beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. But GW's regime makes a lot of hopelessly scary moves purely for political reasons. 2257 alone does not scare me. It's the big picture that has me in a bit of a panic.

Mishi · 2005-06-25, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wenchy

Something has been bothering me and it's high time someone said it. The absolute bottom line is that the people the DOJ aimed the new regs at are not, have never been, and will never be the least bit interested in 2257, documentation, or legal content. I keep getting hung up on the idea that this was all done under the umbrella of keeping CP off the Net... but the CPers don't give two shits about laws or they wouldn't do what they do in the first place! Did they honestly think that creating a new set of regulations was going to suddenly scare the CPers into getting legal? Surely even our beloved gov'ment isn't that dense.

If what you say is true, UW, they didn't need this whole bloody shitstorm to accomplish their goals. Last time I knew anything about it, they don't call up the CP assholes who are under investigation and say, "Hi, this is the FBI. We're on our way over to bust you and all your fellow scumbags. Please be certain there is someone home when we knock on the door. Oh, and we'll need access to your computer while we're there so make sure the chair is empty."

Criminals are going to be criminals regardless of what laws/regs are on the books. All they've done is create a huge fucking construction zone on the adult internet commerce highway. Wonder how long it will take them to figure it out?

So right on all counts...and the scary thing is, it may be the 2257 BS that turns this bleeding-heart liberal into an NRA supporter. Suddenly, I get where they're coming from. Yikes!

lassiter · 2005-06-25, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mishi

So right on all counts...and the scary thing is, it may be the 2257 BS that turns this bleeding-heart liberal into an NRA supporter. Suddenly, I get where they're coming from. Yikes!

Hiya, Mishi!

I'd say it's quite easy to be both progressive and armed.

All those Bill of Rights amendments were put in the constitution for a good purpose, and the 2nd amendment was put in not to protect "the rights of hunters" as the often-silly NRA would have it, but to allow the citizens to bear arms as an equalizing force against potential governmental oppression of the people.

Linkster · 2005-06-25, 11:55 AM

lassiter - that kinda glosses over what the real intent (as has been proven in actual supreme court cases over the last 200 years) of the 2nd amdn. really means - every case that has ever come up falls back to the right of the citizens (this was very important in the Dred Scott case as at that time the blacks were not considered "citizens") to possess arms that could be used in forming a state militia to protect the US, the people of the US from themselves - an insurgency , or against tyrannical government takeover. This has been decided in so many cases by the supreme court when it came to things like sawed-off shotguns (the court felt that these are not really military arms that could be used in a militia) and other arms that - again wouldnt be a normal military weapon.
Keep in mind that at the same time, there was no standing army - as a matter of fact that was prohibited by law - the idea was to have all male citizens between 18-50 available for an army if the need arose. It was also echoed throughout the states laws and in some cases, even more stringent.
It really was not singularly put in there for the protection against government oppression - it was there for any states' needs to protect itself.

lassiter · 2005-06-25, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

l(this was very important in the Dred Scott case as at that time the blacks were not considered "citizens")

Exactly - which is why every subsequent decision ruling against the right of free citizens to bear arms was based on the precedent from the tortured logic of an explicitly racist Supreme Court decision, not on the intent of the founders. Jefferson had quite a few things to say on the topic, including that of an armed revolution being necessary every 20 years or so to keep government power from becoming too entrenched or oppressive.

As for the states, the "National Guard" as the "militia" is another erroneous and tortured reading. The state National Guards were mainly formed in the early 20th century, not in the 1700s, as a way to get around the "posse comitatus" act that forbade the army from being used against the citizens. The Guards were formed to threaten and kill striking citizens who were protesting against working conditions in the factories and mines - again, not a militia of the "people" but merely another arm of state
oppression. And of course, since President Reagan and Congress federalized all state National Guards in the 1980s, they are essentially illegal and unconstitutional forces, since they are now de facto federal military forces used against US citizens in direct violation of Posse Comitatus.

But I won't bore everyone with more of this - there's plenty of info to be found by Googling the topics.

Ledfish · 2005-06-25, 12:12 PM

Tommy, I think when it comes down to it, if the DOJ tried to go after someone for a 2257 violation where the only part of the law broken was not being available on a particular day for a specific reason, even though it was during the stated hours on the website, they probably wouldn't have much luck with a judge and jury. Further I don't think they would risk everything to go after someone because they were not available due to non-routine circumstances, like voting, doctors appointments, etc. Probably not even a vacation.

When the IRS is investigate an individual or organization, they still make an appointment and try and do it at the tax payers convenience because later on, if they show that they tried to be accomidating and you never accomidated them, then it makes you look more like you have something to hide, So I think with a 2257 inspection, if they tried to inspect multiple times and each time you conveniently were not available, then it might appear you were dodging them and they would probably have a good case against you.

I think Linkster makes a good point though about it being very business like and I even think that will apply unless they have already have a case against you for something really damning. I think even if something seems questionable, inspections will ultimately be handled very business like.

I also think the sky is falling in mentality is a bit hysterical. I don't think that the DOJ has tens of thousands of inspectors trained and ready to go all over the country, just waiting for the word to go start knocking on doors.....which is what some people would have you believe.

P.S. I like the front Porch idea. Personally I'd put them on my back deck. Since it is in the sun all day long, they better hope it's a cloudy day or they better make sure they have plenty of sunscreen.

2005-06-24, 11:49 AM	#1
Useless Certified Nice Person Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Dirty Undies, NY Posts: 11,268	Linkster has brought up the most important point, which has been mentioned previously, but isn't really resonating the way it should. They aren't going to go out and just knock on random doors. If anyone ever gets a visit it will be for a damned good reason. Most of us can go on the way we always have, without a single piece of documentation, but those who promote questionable content will always be at risk. __________________ Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling.

2005-06-24, 12:43 PM	#2
Wenchy Trying is the first step towards failure Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Mile High City Posts: 120	Something has been bothering me and it's high time someone said it. The absolute bottom line is that the people the DOJ aimed the new regs at are not, have never been, and will never be the least bit interested in 2257, documentation, or legal content. I keep getting hung up on the idea that this was all done under the umbrella of keeping CP off the Net... but the CPers don't give two shits about laws or they wouldn't do what they do in the first place! Did they honestly think that creating a new set of regulations was going to suddenly scare the CPers into getting legal? Surely even our beloved gov'ment isn't that dense. If what you say is true, UW, they didn't need this whole bloody shitstorm to accomplish their goals. Last time I knew anything about it, they don't call up the CP assholes who are under investigation and say, "Hi, this is the FBI. We're on our way over to bust you and all your fellow scumbags. Please be certain there is someone home when we knock on the door. Oh, and we'll need access to your computer while we're there so make sure the chair is empty." Criminals are going to be criminals regardless of what laws/regs are on the books. All they've done is create a huge fucking construction zone on the adult internet commerce highway. Wonder how long it will take them to figure it out? __________________ I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"

2005-06-24, 01:12 PM	#3
docholly Nothing funnier than the ridiculous faces you people make mid-coitus Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Sin-City USA Posts: 4,973	Since this is SinCity and its a 24/7 town, 9pm-4am are 'normal business hours'. on the remote possiblity that the doj should show up at my 'office' by the time they get to the back where its located they will be very mellow off the ganja contact high and the wicked back beat of the reggae band that plays there. \|rasta\| __________________ Support Indie Porn Sites OMGoddess You know you need some Bling!! Last edited by docholly; 2005-06-24 at 01:13 PM.. Reason: my cut n paste fingers got caught up in pantyhose dick pics

2005-06-25, 11:55 AM	#7
Linkster NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them. Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sex Delta Posts: 5,084	lassiter - that kinda glosses over what the real intent (as has been proven in actual supreme court cases over the last 200 years) of the 2nd amdn. really means - every case that has ever come up falls back to the right of the citizens (this was very important in the Dred Scott case as at that time the blacks were not considered "citizens") to possess arms that could be used in forming a state militia to protect the US, the people of the US from themselves - an insurgency , or against tyrannical government takeover. This has been decided in so many cases by the supreme court when it came to things like sawed-off shotguns (the court felt that these are not really military arms that could be used in a militia) and other arms that - again wouldnt be a normal military weapon. Keep in mind that at the same time, there was no standing army - as a matter of fact that was prohibited by law - the idea was to have all male citizens between 18-50 available for an army if the need arose. It was also echoed throughout the states laws and in some cases, even more stringent. It really was not singularly put in there for the protection against government oppression - it was there for any states' needs to protect itself. __________________ Pussy Chompers Porn Links NSCash

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

2005-06-25, 12:12 PM	#9
Ledfish Internet! Is that thing still around? Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 8	Tommy, I think when it comes down to it, if the DOJ tried to go after someone for a 2257 violation where the only part of the law broken was not being available on a particular day for a specific reason, even though it was during the stated hours on the website, they probably wouldn't have much luck with a judge and jury. Further I don't think they would risk everything to go after someone because they were not available due to non-routine circumstances, like voting, doctors appointments, etc. Probably not even a vacation. When the IRS is investigate an individual or organization, they still make an appointment and try and do it at the tax payers convenience because later on, if they show that they tried to be accomidating and you never accomidated them, then it makes you look more like you have something to hide, So I think with a 2257 inspection, if they tried to inspect multiple times and each time you conveniently were not available, then it might appear you were dodging them and they would probably have a good case against you. I think Linkster makes a good point though about it being very business like and I even think that will apply unless they have already have a case against you for something really damning. I think even if something seems questionable, inspections will ultimately be handled very business like. I also think the sky is falling in mentality is a bit hysterical. I don't think that the DOJ has tens of thousands of inspectors trained and ready to go all over the country, just waiting for the word to go start knocking on doors.....which is what some people would have you believe. P.S. I like the front Porch idea. Personally I'd put them on my back deck. Since it is in the sun all day long, they better hope it's a cloudy day or they better make sure they have plenty of sunscreen.