Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

[Column] General: The March Against Violent Videogames

1234568»

Comments

  • UhwopUhwop Wilm, DEPosts: 1,663Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mythran7
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by mythran7
    Originally posted by Uhwop

    Hunting is NOT the only acceptable reason to own a gun, YOU need to stop with that. 

    A government that is not oppressing it's citizens has nothing to fear from an armed populace. 

    The right to bear arms has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HUNTING or being able to shoot criminals.  The only reason we have it is because guns are needed in order to defend against the government. 

    Our rights are based on those things that the British tried to keep from us when we were a colony. 

    The right to free speach, to assemble, to bear arms, all these things the british tried to stop us from doing.  These are considered BASIC human rights that when not allowed to have indicate a state of oppression. 

    They well all the rights that our forefathers were being denied.  That is why they write it into the constitution that our government can not take them. 

    And the right to bear arms is the one that they identified as being the right that allows us to protect all of the others. 

     

    others. 

     

     I was waiting for this argument. (you are right it is the real argument)

    The second amendment was written when "guns' were muskets. You'd be lucky to kill a person at 20 yards with one. Your forefathers couldn’t not have seen this future. The government has warplanes, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, tanks, and biological weapons. Are you suggesting that citizens have the right to arm themselves with these kinds of weapons to protect themselves from the government? If this truly is the heart of the amendment then you must be in favor of this, because the government can wipe out any opposition with the flick of switch with modern technology. 

    The times of changes people, time to wake up.

     Our forefathers were not technically ignorant. 

    The only thing that mattered to them was that SOLDIERS carry them.  It's entirely based the principle that the people need access to the same weapons that the GOVERNMENT uses. 

    I'm sorry sir.  You are very, very wrong. 

     

    Because they also made it clear that the bill of rights isn't interpretable.  You're not even allowed to amend it. 

    It was written in blood for godsakes.  Our ancestors died enmasse so we could have them!

     

    I would die tomorrow to keep them.  BELIEVE THAT! 

    Riiight. You still havent answered my question. Your just not willing to see it.  Its your ideology, it's not based in reason.

    The government uses tanks, warplanes, and chemical and biological weapons. You cant escape it that easy. Should citzens have accesss to these as you say the amendment intended?

     Dude, the same righ that lets me own a gun also lets me own a tank.  Yes indeed, an american citizen can own a working tank. 

    ARMS does not mean GUNS.  Guns are ONE FORM OF arms.   Of course there are limits, I can't own an explosive warhead.  Accidentally discharging a bomb isn't quit the same as accidentally discharging my gun in the house. 

     

    It's is not the right to bear guns, it's to bear arms. 

     

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Originally posted by Pokket
    Originally posted by BitterClinger

    More American were murdered in Chicago in 2012 than NATO forces (incl. U.S.) were killed in Afghanistan. This isn't because Chicago has a high concentration of rampaging gamers, and it isn't because Chicago doesn't have enough gun laws.

    LET ME THROW SOME STATS AT YOU ... softly:

     

    . In 2011, according to fbi.gov, California had 1,790 total murders, 1,220 which were caused by handguns. This number doubles that of any other state, including TX that had 1,089 murders, 699 were with firearms.

    Found here.

     

     . In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep

    .  In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant

    .  In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales

    . ...the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban

    . Chicago did a handgun ban in 1982. In 1995 the law was amended and in 2010 many of the laws passed in chicago and suburbs were repealed. In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.

    More...

    "NOTE: Although the NRA does not state that this data is derived from production-based estimates, it is consistent with the 1999 production-based estimates in the citation above."

    From the bottom of the link you quote, I note the NRA provided the information.

    image
    "It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member
    Originally posted by mythran7
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by mythran7
    Originally posted by Uhwop

    Hunting is NOT the only acceptable reason to own a gun, YOU need to stop with that. 

    A government that is not oppressing it's citizens has nothing to fear from an armed populace. 

    The right to bear arms has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HUNTING or being able to shoot criminals.  The only reason we have it is because guns are needed in order to defend against the government. 

    Our rights are based on those things that the British tried to keep from us when we were a colony. 

    The right to free speach, to assemble, to bear arms, all these things the british tried to stop us from doing.  These are considered BASIC human rights that when not allowed to have indicate a state of oppression. 

    They well all the rights that our forefathers were being denied.  That is why they write it into the constitution that our government can not take them. 

    And the right to bear arms is the one that they identified as being the right that allows us to protect all of the others. 

     

    others. 

     

     I was waiting for this argument. (you are right it is the real argument)

    The second amendment was written when "guns' were muskets. You'd be lucky to kill a person at 20 yards with one. Your forefathers couldn’t not have seen this future. The government has warplanes, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, tanks, and biological weapons. Are you suggesting that citizens have the right to arm themselves with these kinds of weapons to protect themselves from the government? If this truly is the heart of the amendment then you must be in favor of this, because the government can wipe out any opposition with the flick of switch with modern technology. 

    The times of changes people, time to wake up.

     Our forefathers were not technically ignorant. 

    The only thing that mattered to them was that SOLDIERS carry them.  It's entirely based the principle that the people need access to the same weapons that the GOVERNMENT uses. 

    I'm sorry sir.  You are very, very wrong. 

     

    Because they also made it clear that the bill of rights isn't interpretable.  You're not even allowed to amend it. 

    It was written in blood for godsakes.  Our ancestors died enmasse so we could have them!

     

    I would die tomorrow to keep them.  BELIEVE THAT! 

    Riiight. You still havent answered my question. Your just not willing to see it.  Its your ideology, it's not based in reason.

    The government uses tanks, warplanes, and chemical and biological weapons. You cant escape it that easy. Should citzens have accesss to these as you say the amendment intended?

    What makes you think the military will be on your side?

    Secondly, nobody is talking about going up against all those scarey machines with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifles. But guess what, they all need fuel, they all need maintenance, they all need ammo, they all need a driver/pilot. Without them, those big scarey machines are worthless. Think why I would know that. Think long and hard.

    But, don't take my experience and training into account:

    Here, the CO was killed and 8 US fighter jets blown up by goat farmers.

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/sep/15/yuma-harrier-jets-marine-felled-afghanistan/

    This country wasn't founded by cowards. You should be thankful, if you're an American.

     

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,593Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mythran7
    Originally posted by Uhwop

    Hunting is NOT the only acceptable reason to own a gun, YOU need to stop with that. 

    A government that is not oppressing it's citizens has nothing to fear from an armed populace. 

    The right to bear arms has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HUNTING or being able to shoot criminals.  The only reason we have it is because guns are needed in order to defend against the government. 

    Our rights are based on those things that the British tried to keep from us when we were a colony. 

    The right to free speach, to assemble, to bear arms, all these things the british tried to stop us from doing.  These are considered BASIC human rights that when not allowed to have indicate a state of oppression. 

    They well all the rights that our forefathers were being denied.  That is why they write it into the constitution that our government can not take them. 

    And the right to bear arms is the one that they identified as being the right that allows us to protect all of the others. 

     

    others. 

     

     I was waiting for this argument. (you are right it is the real argument)

    The second amendment was written when "guns' were muskets. You'd be lucky to kill a person at 20 yards with one. Your forefathers couldn’t not have seen this future. The government has warplanes, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, tanks, and biological weapons. Are you suggesting that citizens have the right to arm themselves with these kinds of weapons to protect themselves from the government? If this truly is the heart of the amendment then you must be in favor of this, because the government can wipe out any opposition with the flick of switch with modern technology. 

    The times of changes people, time to wake up.

    Really? I've personally noticed how well that "flick of the switch" worked in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (to name but a few)...  Certain principles, such as those enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are timeless.  The fallacy that such have to change, is only a product of a certain ideology, and the agendas that motivate those who hold such.

    Video games are just the latest scapegoat to be targetted by such people.  Before that it was comics and rock and roll music.  But the main focus of those who seek to disarm our people, is their fear of an armed general population, and the inherent limitations that imposes on forcing their ideology on everyone else. 

    To paraphrase Jefferson, the people are long suffering, but their patience/tolerence isn't endless.  That frightens some, who hold a certain ideology. As well it should.

  • HeretiqueHeretique Posts: 1,101Member Uncommon

    Getting tired of the blame game, some notable posters in here have hit it on the nail.

    Great post Pokket but I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

    Originally posted by salsa41
    are you have problem ?

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member

     Dude, the same righ that lets me own a gun also lets me own a tank.  Yes indeed, an american citizen can own a working tank. 

    ARMS does not mean GUNS.  Guns are ONE FORM OF arms.   Of course there are limits, I can't own an explosive warhead.  Accidentally discharging a bomb isn't quit the same as accidentally discharging my gun in the house. 

     

    It's is not the right to bear guns, it's to bear arms. 

     

    I'm on your side, but nobody is asking for personal nukes or tanks. At least, not any serious respectable groups and a total of zero on the national stage.

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • UhwopUhwop Wilm, DEPosts: 1,663Member Uncommon

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the bet security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. 

    As originally written by Madison

    A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear armns shall not be infringed. 

    As written to law. 

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    It's weird to me that in the US people would rather have 10000 people shot each year to preserve their right to kill a couple of 18year olds when the Army come to take them away at the behest of "the man". It's like Waco's David Koresh got access to an MMO website here sometimes.

    image
    "It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

  • UhwopUhwop Wilm, DEPosts: 1,663Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by NorseGod

     Dude, the same righ that lets me own a gun also lets me own a tank.  Yes indeed, an american citizen can own a working tank. 

    ARMS does not mean GUNS.  Guns are ONE FORM OF arms.   Of course there are limits, I can't own an explosive warhead.  Accidentally discharging a bomb isn't quit the same as accidentally discharging my gun in the house. 

     

    It's is not the right to bear guns, it's to bear arms. 

     

    I'm on your side, but nobody is asking for personal nukes or tanks. At least, not any serious respectable groups and a total of zero on the national stage.

     That wasn't the point.

    The right to bear arms is entirely based on our ability to arm ourselves against our government.  It's not about hunting or shotting criminals. 

    That's why you can buy a tank. 

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member
    Originally posted by mythran7

    Wrong, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting oneself from tyranny. This isn't even up for debate. The USSC has ruled as such. The authors of the Constitution have also written this many times over.

    If find it odd that you believe the people on tv when they say that the Forefathers, after revolting against a dictator, decided to guarantee the right to a recreational activity. Get real. You know exactly what the 2nd Amendement means and it scares you.

    Furthermore, you keep changing the "only reason for guns". Using whichever works best for you I suppose. First you say they are for killing people. Then you say they are for hunting. Another guy points out that they are used for sport. I will say that they make one hell of a deterrent. "A rifle behind every blade of grass". Remember? CCW goes up, crime goes down. etc etc..

    All across America, people are loading up on firarms and ammunition, breaking records each month since 2008. They are not doing this to just turn them in.

    Again, why haven't boxcutters been banned? They murdered 3,000 within minutes. I can't wait for your response on banning boxcutters..

     

    If you were paying attention the previous argument was not originally about the second amendment.

    Secondly, the reason for guns is killing things, end of story. There is no debate here.

    Please make a cogent argument. What are guns for? What is YOUR argument? Are they  for defense? For sport? Because of the 2nd amendment? You guys are good at arguing with the arguments in your own head, your not actually dealing with the real argument. I wonder why?

    A box cutter is not designed to kill masses of people. FALSE ANALOGY.

    If you want to say airplanes are weapons of mass destruction you might be getting someplace. Yet airplanes are not DESIGNED to kill things. Realize that this argument has failed, your just not accepting the logic of it.

    If you tell me AK-47's were designed for target practice I am going to face-palm.


     

    Yes, guns are designed to kill people. Lots and lots of enemies foreign and domestic............ There is not argument, I know exactly what my right to own firearms is for.

    You can dance around semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, we'll see who's still holding their guns. Your "end of story" doesn't work with me.

    So boxcutters are ok, and airplanes are weapons of mass destruction? lol, ok. So, it's not the person that flies the airplane, but the airplane itself? Are you asking to ban airplanes?

    Do you think violent games are to blame for mass murder or not? I have to ask because you're pretty hell bent on blaming inanimate objects instead of the actual individual(s) that commit the crime.

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by NorseGod

     Dude, the same righ that lets me own a gun also lets me own a tank.  Yes indeed, an american citizen can own a working tank. 

    ARMS does not mean GUNS.  Guns are ONE FORM OF arms.   Of course there are limits, I can't own an explosive warhead.  Accidentally discharging a bomb isn't quit the same as accidentally discharging my gun in the house. 

     

    It's is not the right to bear guns, it's to bear arms. 

     

    I'm on your side, but nobody is asking for personal nukes or tanks. At least, not any serious respectable groups and a total of zero on the national stage.

     That wasn't the point.

    The right to bear arms is entirely based on our ability to arm ourselves against our government.  It's not about hunting or shotting criminals. 

    That's why you can buy a tank. 

    Actually, you can buy a tank. There's all kinds of videos of private citizens with tanks (on their property of course).

    Just like you can buy automatic weapons, real ones, not the ones they describe in the media (semi-automatic assault weapons, oxymoron). You have to get a Federal License which is very expensive and the ATF can inspect those weapons at anytime.

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • RaysheRayshe London, ONPosts: 1,284Member

    I'm starting to think its more related to Fogeign policy.

    Because i can.
    I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
    Logic every gamers worst enemy.

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member
    Originally posted by ObiClownobi
    It's weird to me that in the US people would rather have 10000 people shot each year to preserve their right to kill a couple of 18year olds when the Army come to take them away at the behest of "the man". It's like Waco's David Koresh got access to an MMO website here sometimes.

    So you're ok with a ban on violent video games too?

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • mythran7mythran7 Abbotsford, BCPosts: 57Member
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Originally posted by mythran7

    Wrong, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting oneself from tyranny. This isn't even up for debate. The USSC has ruled as such. The authors of the Constitution have also written this many times over.

    If find it odd that you believe the people on tv when they say that the Forefathers, after revolting against a dictator, decided to guarantee the right to a recreational activity. Get real. You know exactly what the 2nd Amendement means and it scares you.

    Furthermore, you keep changing the "only reason for guns". Using whichever works best for you I suppose. First you say they are for killing people. Then you say they are for hunting. Another guy points out that they are used for sport. I will say that they make one hell of a deterrent. "A rifle behind every blade of grass". Remember? CCW goes up, crime goes down. etc etc..

    All across America, people are loading up on firarms and ammunition, breaking records each month since 2008. They are not doing this to just turn them in.

    Again, why haven't boxcutters been banned? They murdered 3,000 within minutes. I can't wait for your response on banning boxcutters..

     

    If you were paying attention the previous argument was not originally about the second amendment.

    Secondly, the reason for guns is killing things, end of story. There is no debate here.

    Please make a cogent argument. What are guns for? What is YOUR argument? Are they  for defense? For sport? Because of the 2nd amendment? You guys are good at arguing with the arguments in your own head, your not actually dealing with the real argument. I wonder why?

    A box cutter is not designed to kill masses of people. FALSE ANALOGY.

    If you want to say airplanes are weapons of mass destruction you might be getting someplace. Yet airplanes are not DESIGNED to kill things. Realize that this argument has failed, your just not accepting the logic of it.

    If you tell me AK-47's were designed for target practice I am going to face-palm.


     

    Yes, guns are designed to kill people. Lots and lots of enemies foreign and domestic............ There is not argument, I know exactly what my right to own firearms for.

    You can dance around semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, we'll see who's still holding their guns. Your "end of story" doesn't work with me.

    So boxcutters are ok, and airplanes are weapons of mass destruction? lol, ok. So, it's not the person that flies the airplane, but the airplane itself? Are you asking to ban airplanes?

    Do you think violent games are to blame for mass murder or not? I have to ask because you're pretty hell bent on blaming inanimate objects instead of the actual individual(s) that commit the crime.

     

    Perhaps sarcasm is hard to convey on the internet?? Airplanes are not designed as weapons, that is the point. Automatic weapons are designed to kill people, you have agreed with me, so my "end of story" has to 'work with you". You just admitted as such.


     

    So the argument is the right to bear arms. I find it interesting how we dance around this. First its “a gun is just a tool” nonsense, then its about protecting yourself, or hunting, or target practice, and now finally its about the second amendment. As it should be, since all the other arguments are side shows and their weakness is evident to any thinking person.


     

    The point remains. In order to effectively "arm" yourself from the government you should need access to nuclear weapons. They could wipe out all of Texas with the flick of a switch. A neutron bomb in the right place would destroy all of it. Guns are useless in a fight against the government should the Government decide to use their full power on you.

    Unless you are prepared to admit that citizens should have the right to arm themselves with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and that this should be part of the “spirit” of the second amendment THIS ARGUMENT FAILS.

    Its really this simple. The forefathers could not have anticipated modern warfare. Now the spirit of the amendment is still valid, but you have allow for these condition if your going to be consistent with the original intent of the forefathers.

    Most anti-gun control advocates would never argue for allowing citizens access to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Wackos perhaps, but at least the wackos are being consistent with the spirit of the amendment.

    The facts are guns are not a effective counter to true firepower of your national government, a totalitarian regime would not be hindered by rules of warfare or the ban on these weapons.


     

    Again, this argument fails. Time to start really tackling the issue as it really is. The straw-man is burning up.


     

    I think a lot of Americans watch too much of Red Dawn when they were kids.

    As a side if you read my original post I don’t actually blame video games, or guns for that matter. But I do think that moderate gun control is warranted and long over due.


     

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Originally posted by ObiClownobi
    It's weird to me that in the US people would rather have 10000 people shot each year to preserve their right to kill a couple of 18year olds when the Army come to take them away at the behest of "the man". It's like Waco's David Koresh got access to an MMO website here sometimes.

    So you're ok with a ban on violent video games too?

    How on earth would you conclude that from my statement?

    image
    "It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

  • RenoakuRenoaku Posts: 1,005Member Uncommon

    http://www.jesseventura.net/

    Lets talk about all the government conspiracy. Guns are only a small thing too lets talk about the next upcomming things like Bio Terrorism which will be able to get on airplanes pretty easily and wont be noticed until its too late, yes this is likely going to be the next big boom and sooner or later they will start require peoples fingers to get pricked at airports to check for bio warfare besides the scans.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,461Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mythran7

    The facts are guns are not a effective counter to true firepower of your national government, a totalitarian regime would not be hindered by rules of warfare or the ban on these weapons.


     

    As a side if you read my original post I don’t actually blame video games, or guns for that matter. But I do think that moderate gun control is warranted and long over due.


     

    I actually agree with this. I do think that there needs to be better gun control and I also agree that any gun that a person can get their hands on is not going to allow them to sufficiently protect themselves if the government decides to "get in their face".

    However, these people who are making these killing sprees are not turned into psychopaths because of movies, video games or whatever else. There are other issues at work to make that happen.

    There were serial killers around waaay before violent videogames and movies. completely eliminating violent video games and movies is not going to stop people from finding ways to indulge their violent tendancies. They are just going to go catch animals (at the very least) and start torturing them.

    But I do think that guns need to be more difficult for people to get though there also runs the risk of a black market starting up (if there isn't one already). But dealing with excessively violent tendencies is something that our society really needs to get a handle on.

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member


     

    Yes, guns are designed to kill people. Lots and lots of enemies foreign and domestic............ There is not argument, I know exactly what my right to own firearms for.

    You can dance around semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, we'll see who's still holding their guns. Your "end of story" doesn't work with me.

    So boxcutters are ok, and airplanes are weapons of mass destruction? lol, ok. So, it's not the person that flies the airplane, but the airplane itself? Are you asking to ban airplanes?

    Do you think violent games are to blame for mass murder or not? I have to ask because you're pretty hell bent on blaming inanimate objects instead of the actual individual(s) that commit the crime.

     

    Perhaps sarcasm is hard to convey on the internet?? Airplanes are not designed as weapons, that is the point. Automatic weapons are designed to kill people, you have agreed with me, so my "end of story" has to 'work with you". You just admitted as such.


     

    So the argument is the right to bear arms. I find it interesting how we dance around this. First its “a gun is just a tool” nonsense, then its about protecting yourself, or hunting, or target practice, and now finally its about the second amendment. As it should be, since all the other arguments are side shows and their weakness is evident to any thinking person.


     

    The point remains. In order to effectively "arm" yourself from the government you should need access to nuclear weapons. They could wipe out all of Texas with the flick of a switch. A neutron bomb in the right place would destroy all of it. Guns are useless in a fight against the government should the Government decide to use their full power on you.

    Unless you are prepared to admit that citizens should have the right to arm themselves with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and that this should be part of the “spirit” of the second amendment THIS ARGUMENT FAILS.

    Its really this simple. The forefathers could not have anticipated modern warfare, its that simple. Now the spirit of the amendment is still valid, but you have allow for these condition if your going to be consistent with the original intent of the forefathers.

    Most anti-gun control advocates would never argue for allowing citizens assess to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Wackos perhaps, but at least the wackos are being consistent with the spirit of the amendment.

    The facts are guns are not a effective counter to true firepower of your national government, a totalitarian regime would not be hindered by rules of warfare or the ban on these weapons.


     

    Again, the argument fails. Time to start really tackling the issue as it really is. The straw-man is burning up.


     

    I think a lot of Americans watch too much of Red Dawn when they were kids.

    As a side if you read my original post I don’t actually blame video games, or guns for that matter. But I do think that moderate gun control is warranted and long over due.


     

    Now we're talking about automatic weapons. Guess what, the government is trying to ban semi-automatic weapons. Do you even know the difference?

    Did you know that our unit DM (Designated Marksman or someone that hasn't had formal sniper training, but a good shot) uses a Remmington 700? It's a bolt-action rifle that can be bought in any Wal-Mart. Do you know how many in the military carry AR-15s? Zero. Why?

    You still believe that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. It's not. It never was. The Supreme Court says so. The Federalist Papers say so. No 2nd Amendment Rights advicate group is fighting for the rights to hunt. They are fighting for the right to protect themselves. I don't need anybody's permission to do this and never will. Nor will the tens of millions just like me.

    What people do on this site with firearms is not my business. They use them for sport or hunting, I don't care. Personally, I have never gone hunting. However, I was in the military (use your imagination), I target practice, I deter others from causing harm to myself, my family, my property, and others around me. And I have them to protect my Rights under the Constutution.

    As I mentioned earlier, you are hell bent on blaming inanimate objects and not holding the actual criminals responsible. That's fine because I refuse to be a victim.

    Guns are evil, yet prevented Japan from invading.

    You like to bring up nukes and NBC, nobody is asking for this. Show me one credible group on the national stage.

    You also like to bring up how pointless it is to fight a government, yet history is littered with sucessful guerrilla campaigns. You don't even need to look at history, at this very moment, the U.S. government, who opposes private citizens the right to bear arms, is arming citizens in Libya, Syria, Yeman, Egypt, etc etc, to overthrow their dictators. The government you voted for is doing this.

    The government that you voted for, is also saying that an inanimate object (violent video games), like guns, are to blame for mass murder.

    So, do you think that violent video games should be banned?

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member
    Originally posted by ObiClownobi
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Originally posted by ObiClownobi
    It's weird to me that in the US people would rather have 10000 people shot each year to preserve their right to kill a couple of 18year olds when the Army come to take them away at the behest of "the man". It's like Waco's David Koresh got access to an MMO website here sometimes.

    So you're ok with a ban on violent video games too?

    How on earth would you conclude that from my statement?

    Because you are taking away the responsibility of criminals and putting it on inanimate objects, like violent video games.

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • mythran7mythran7 Abbotsford, BCPosts: 57Member
    Originally posted by NorseGod


     

    Yes, guns are designed to kill people. Lots and lots of enemies foreign and domestic............ There is not argument, I know exactly what my right to own firearms for.

    You can dance around semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, we'll see who's still holding their guns. Your "end of story" doesn't work with me.

    So boxcutters are ok, and airplanes are weapons of mass destruction? lol, ok. So, it's not the person that flies the airplane, but the airplane itself? Are you asking to ban airplanes?

    Do you think violent games are to blame for mass murder or not? I have to ask because you're pretty hell bent on blaming inanimate objects instead of the actual individual(s) that commit the crime.

     

    Perhaps sarcasm is hard to convey on the internet?? Airplanes are not designed as weapons, that is the point. Automatic weapons are designed to kill people, you have agreed with me, so my "end of story" has to 'work with you". You just admitted as such.


     

    So the argument is the right to bear arms. I find it interesting how we dance around this. First its “a gun is just a tool” nonsense, then its about protecting yourself, or hunting, or target practice, and now finally its about the second amendment. As it should be, since all the other arguments are side shows and their weakness is evident to any thinking person.


     

    The point remains. In order to effectively "arm" yourself from the government you should need access to nuclear weapons. They could wipe out all of Texas with the flick of a switch. A neutron bomb in the right place would destroy all of it. Guns are useless in a fight against the government should the Government decide to use their full power on you.

    Unless you are prepared to admit that citizens should have the right to arm themselves with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and that this should be part of the “spirit” of the second amendment THIS ARGUMENT FAILS.

    Its really this simple. The forefathers could not have anticipated modern warfare, its that simple. Now the spirit of the amendment is still valid, but you have allow for these condition if your going to be consistent with the original intent of the forefathers.

    Most anti-gun control advocates would never argue for allowing citizens assess to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Wackos perhaps, but at least the wackos are being consistent with the spirit of the amendment.

    The facts are guns are not a effective counter to true firepower of your national government, a totalitarian regime would not be hindered by rules of warfare or the ban on these weapons.


     

    Again, the argument fails. Time to start really tackling the issue as it really is. The straw-man is burning up.


     

    I think a lot of Americans watch too much of Red Dawn when they were kids.

    As a side if you read my original post I don’t actually blame video games, or guns for that matter. But I do think that moderate gun control is warranted and long over due.


     

    Now we're talking about automatic weapons. Guess what, the government is trying to ban semi-automatic weapons. Do you even know the difference?

    Did you know that our unit DM (Designated Marksman or someone that hasn't had formal sniper training, but a good shot) uses a Remmington 700? It's a bolt-action rifle that can be bought in any Wal-Mart. Do you know how many in the military carry AR-15s? Zero. Why?

    You still believe that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. It's not. It never was. The Supreme Court says so. The Federalist Papers say so. No 2nd Amendment Rights advicate group is fighting for the rights to hunt. They are fighting for the right to protect themselves. I don't need anybody's permission to do this and never will. Nor will the tens of millions just like me.

    What people do on this site with firearms is not my business. They use them for sport or hunting, I don't care. Personally, I have never gone hunting. However, I was in the military (use your imagination), I target practice, I deter others from causing harm to myself, my family, my property, and others around me. And I have them to protect my Rights under the Constutution.

    As I mentioned earlier, you are hell bent on blaming inanimate objects and not holding the actual criminals responsible. That's fine because I refuse to be a victim.

    Guns are evil, yet prevented Japan from invading.

    You like to bring up nukes and NBC, nobody is asking for this. Show me one credible group on the national stage.

    You also like to bring up how pointless it is to fight a government, yet history is littered with sucessful guerrilla campaigns. You don't even need to look at history, at this very moment, the U.S. government, who opposes private citizens the right to bear arms, is arming citizens in Libya, Syria, Yeman, Egypt, etc etc, to overthrow their dictators. The government you voted for is doing this.

    The government that you voted for, is also saying that an inanimate object (violent video games), like guns, are to blame for mass murder.

    So, do you think that violent video games should be banned?

     

    I think you should really read before you post, because you are not tracking very well. You are countering arguments I haven’t made, and missing the arguments I have.

    What makes you think I voted for the government? You seem to like to debate an opponent that conforms to your own internal idea of what the argument is instead of actually tackling what is really being debated.

    I can't really comment on your other ramblings because your not even dealing with the arguments I made.

    The point isn’t that you cannot fight the government, only that the spirit of the second amendment should allow for citizens to arm themselves with the same weapons the government possesses. It's about consistency of reasoning, and the anti-gun control argument is utterly inconsistent. The American military is not some third world nation. If the government wanted to oppress it's citizens it has more than enough firepower to destroy you. The point I made is the second amendment was made IN THE TIME OF MUSKETS. It's not the same world anymore.

    Your trying to put a square idea in a round hole. It's not going to work. The problem is so many of you just listen all that talk show radio stuff you form these straw-man arguments that you think make sense.  I have repeatedly stated that video games are not to blame, you obviously aren’t really reading or understanding anything I say.


     

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Chicago, ILPosts: 2,236Member Uncommon

    You know, with this thread spiraling down to political name calling, I went back up to the article and tried to see who sponsored this "march against violent video games," where it was at, and who was attending.

    And the interesting thing--perhaps the most interesting thing--is that there is no event called "the march against violent video games."  It was made up.  And so I ask myself why.  Why would a writer on MMORPG.com argue against an event that never happened?  What would the writer want to accomplish?

    The tagline says this:

    "In the wake of recent tragedies, many in the US government are championing irresponsibly violent video games. But is that a fair assessment? We take a look at that today. See what we've got to say and then join the conversation in the comments."

    Pokkit, why did you drum up this shit?  Because it ain't even true.  It's just something done to drum up the troops here, but we ought to at least know who "the enemy" really is.

    Because it seems to me that when I hear the outcry against violent video games, the loudest voices I hear aren't from the Federal government, but interest groups--most visibly the National Rifle Association--and local communities--mostly inner-city neighborhoods that are lucky to have internet, let alone internet games.

    But those aren't even the most important voices.

    Sadly, perhaps the softest voices are also the most numerous: the parents, especially the mothers across this country.  We ask them to be responsible in the face of multi-million dollar PR budgets.  They are up against multi-billion dollar industries that really don't give a damn if their children live or die, just as long as they sell more ammo, sell more FPS boxes, sell more Planetside 2 add-ons from Smed's store, and come to MMORPG.com to gloat about it.  And mothers--and many fathers too--are losing this war for their children's attention, just like the industry wants.

    And when mothers do become responsible, when they try to take a stand and organize events to demand that the industries listen to their needs for once, they are told, "learn how to be a mother," as it's all the mother's fault that she can't magically make Call of Duty and WoW disappear.  Because unless you monitor the kid 24/7, keep him away from friends, don't allow him to go out and sit in with him at school, he's going to play it.

    How awesome is it, really, to stand up and demand our right to semi-automatics and digital gorefests with impunity.  But woe be it for a mother to suggest that our great society--the one that gives us guns and gore on demand--is making her thankless duty more difficult than it ought to be.  How dare she suggest that these toys of adolecent fantasy are getting in the way of her more mature responsibilities.

     

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

1234568»
This discussion has been closed.