Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Opinions on this poster.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Zen21Tao, Apr 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zen21Tao

    Zen21Tao Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
  2. GoRon

    GoRon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,495
    Location:
    west burbs of Chicago
    I am less interested in porn than the regulation of political speech.

    You should have a blank TV that says add pulled due to it being 60 days before an election (McCain-Feingold Bill).

    I wasn't aware that Playboy was under government assault.:rolleyes:
     
  3. cambeul41

    cambeul41 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,186
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan
    That's the point. Playboy is not under assault.

    I agree that the McCain-Feingold Bill is a serious threat to the 1st amendment. .

    Playboy isn’t under government assault, nor is it under assault by MSM. It is protected by the 1st amendment. However, the second amendment itself is being attacked by both MSM and several big city governments.
     
  4. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,051
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    I like it.

    It's a two edge sword, that cuts both ways.

    "Porn" is periodically under attack from the dark authoritarians of right. Guns are consistently under attack from the dark collectivists of the left.

    Another variant might be the legal trade of sex toys in the state of Alabama, a law both enacted and upheld. (I'll have to see if I can dig out the Alabama supreme court majority opinion. It was amusingly preposterous, holding that sex toys were a threat to public morals and decency.)

    Update!

    Here's more on that:

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_307613.html

    My reactions:
    http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_geekwitha45_archive.html#110974286152506019
     
  5. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,966
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    I don't think you want to associate the two if you're trying to reach the American public in general instead of the more narrow adolescent to 30-something males.
     
  6. seeker_two

    seeker_two Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Location:
    Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
    Agreed. Maybe (suppressing a shudder) you could use a magazine cover with someone like Cindy Sheehan, Pat Robertson, or others who express unpopular views, yet are protected by the 1st...
     
  7. Gordon Fink

    Gordon Fink Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    California
    I’ll second seeker two’s thoughts, but the initial effort isn’t bad. It works both ways.

    ~G. Fink
     
  8. thumbody

    thumbody Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    304
    Location:
    mid Michigan
    I do believe playboy is very anti-gun also, that would make the poster even more relevant.
     
  9. GoRon

    GoRon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,495
    Location:
    west burbs of Chicago
    [homer voice] DOOOH [homer voice]

    I must post after second cup of coffee and not before! :D
     
  10. XLMiguel

    XLMiguel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,551
    Location:
    Santa Fe, NM
    Hmmmm, wasn't the Pentagon banning it from domestic PX's a while ago?
     
  11. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    The heavy black border with reversed type is visually unappealing.
     
  12. Smokey Joe

    Smokey Joe Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,617
    Treatment of the 1st as opposed to the 2nd

    For starters, this is art work, and the only person to whom it must appeal is the artist.

    But you asked for opinions. So: I'd rather see a representation of the news media, with their so-called right to intrude on families who have just suffered a grave personal tragedy and ask, on national television, questions that my grandmother would have said are nobody's business, and their leaping to the defense of their salacious presentations ("if it bleeds, it leads!" The only thing better than a hurt puppy is a bleeding kid!) and standing on a vigorously defended 1st amendment right. But they ignore relatively boring items, like congressional hearings on laws that will affect us all.

    These same news "media people" hit on firearms whenever they can, as inherently dangerous and something that should be left to the "experts," i.e. the military and police. They often make it clear with their biased and uninformed statements that they know little about the subject, and didn't bother to check the accuracy of what they say.

    Now, THAT'S hypocrisy!! (Do you get the general idea that I have a quite low opinion of TV news? The print people aren't much better, as a rule.)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page