Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

[TheWalrus]

Sure you do. But does that mean the cold is gone? Or did you just do something to make yourself feel better while enabling the disease to attack your friends, family members and co-workers through your good intentions?
And why wouldnt you focus more on curing the disease than lining the pockets of the companys that just treat your symptoms?

Are you saying I should suffer through my cold more obviously so people will know better than to be near me? Is that what you do?

Relieving some of the symptoms of a cold is in itself a worthwhile goal. Especially since there is no cure for the common cold. You do what you can do, is all. You don't throw your hands up and do nothing just because you can't do everything.

Gun buy backs, confiscation from criminals and checks are already in place....hows that supply now? All im saying is people have a right, and infringing on it does nothing to stop criminals. Criminals arent buying their weapons at gun shows and gun dealers.

Sure they are, at least some, if not directly then by proxy. Out West in particular, gun shows are an absolute free for all and gun control is a concept rather than a reality.

As I said before, the gun lobby does their best to strip gun control laws of any real effect and then comes along afterwards and point to those toothless laws as not having an effect as the reason not to pass a further law. Until an actual gun control law comes along and gets passed and we can see what it does to gun violence, I'll continue to be unmoved by arguments such as this one you're making.

Anyway, gun crime by criminals isn't the only kind worth possibly doing something about. The less likely the average person is to having a gun, and/or the less damaging that gun, the fewer domestic murder cases we'll have as well as "dude just snapped" kinds of spree killers.

I agree with you, our focuses being different. But wouldnt you agree it shows the Founders wisdom that those two little words dont appear in any other of the first 10 Bills?

I would not agree with that, no. Each one has language unique to it.

And as far as well regulated goes, the regulation was not given to the Federal Government by the Founders, shouldn't that mean those regulating powers were to be reserved by the States?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't think there's ever been a successful legal argument made that the 2nd amendment says that the regulation of arms to be a wholly state concern. It's always been the interpretation that the federal government can do things and the state can do things, and where they're in conflict the federal government takes precedence (the "necessary and proper" clause overrules the 10th amendment where they come in conflict, at least usually).

[MoFinz]

Are you saying I should suffer through my cold more obviously so people will know better than to be near me? Is that what you do?

Relieving some of the symptoms of a cold is in itself a worthwhile goal. Especially since there is no cure for the common cold. You do what you can do, is all. You don't throw your hands up and do nothing just because you can't do everything.

You're going to suffer, no matter what i say or do. You would consider it ok to be infectious among friends, or treat your disease and keep your friends from suffering as you do?
You dont just treat the symptoms and ignore the disease...thats how diseases spread. Or worse yet, morph into something worse. Or havent you noticed the pennicillin resistant strains of disease that developed from the over use of pennicillin products?

Sure they are, at least some, if not directly then by proxy. Out West in particular, gun shows are an absolute free for all and gun control is a concept rather than a reality.

As I said before, the gun lobby does their best to strip gun control laws of any real effect and then comes along afterwards and point to those toothless laws as not having an effect as the reason not to pass a further law. Until an actual gun control law comes along and gets passed and we can see what it does to gun violence, I'll continue to be unmoved by arguments such as this one you're making.

Anyway, gun crime by criminals isn't the only kind worth possibly doing something about. The less likely the average person is to having a gun, and/or the less damaging that gun, the fewer domestic murder cases we'll have as well as "dude just snapped" kinds of spree killers.

So, how did Adam Lanza get his gun? Was he able to purchase one at a shop or show? MOST (certainly not all) criminals are happy to buy from street suppliers. But you already have plenty of laws in place, laws that demonstrably worked. So why do people insist on ignoring the REAL problem? Lanza....Cho.....the perpetrators. Are there any behaviors or habits that these murderers have in common? What are we doing to cure the criminal mind instead of impedeing or disarming law abiding citizens?

I don't think there's ever been a successful legal argument made that the 2nd amendment says that the regulation of arms to be a wholly state concern. It's always been the interpretation that the federal government can do things and the state can do things, and where they're in conflict the federal government takes precedence (the "necessary and proper" clause overrules the 10th amendment where they come in conflict, at least usually).

So, they meant for the Federal Government to be large and unwieldly? Sorry, never have bought into that line of thought.

[Buddy]

Here's what I don't get, though. If you can't fully treat the disease, why is that an excuse not to treat the symptoms? There's no cure for the common cold yet I still take Aspirin and anti-histamines when I get one. Don't you?

The problem is that further regulations are not even going to treat the symptom. Although I do not have statistics in front of me, everything that I have seen or read from either side of the isle states that most all gun violence is committed with illegal weapons under the current laws. So, why would anyone add more useless laws and expect a different outcome? Sounds like insanity to me. Furthermore, the vast majority of the crime takes place in the large population centers so why institute laws on everyone else who doesn't line in a big city? Let each state/city make their own rules, regulations, and laws and quit trying to force everyone into the same box. Seems to sound like a lot if my arguments, doesn't it? My point is, if most of the crime takes place with guns that are already illegal, why don't we do a much better job enforcing the laws already on the books?



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Bumpus]

... More asinine knee jerk reactions.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Bumpus]

Here's what I don't get, though. If you can't fully treat the disease, why is that an excuse not to treat the symptoms? There's no cure for the common cold yet I still take Aspirin and anti-histamines when I get one. Don't you?

Great analogy!

But, how about the idea that the disease is criminal nut jobs intent on wreaking havoc? Why can't I treat the symptom of a psycho waving a gun in my face, with a dose of lead? Seems to me that would take care of the symptom at hand.

[TheWalrus]

Great analogy!

But, how about the idea that the disease is criminal nut jobs intent on wreaking havoc? Why can't I treat the symptom of a psycho waving a gun in my face, with a dose of lead? Seems to me that would take care of the symptom at hand.

Go for it. I'm just not convinced that a system that perpetuates your ability to do that is the likeliest to decrease gun violence overall.

The question for me, as I've said, is whether the decrease in the amount of violence you'd see with stricter (or complete) gun control is worth the loss of freedom. There's no right answer to that question but I do think that's the vital question.

[Dolphins9954]

Go for it. I'm just not convinced that a system that perpetuates your ability to do that is the likeliest to decrease gun violence overall.

The question for me, as I've said, is whether the decrease in the amount of violence you'd see with stricter (or complete) gun control is worth the loss of freedom. There's no right answer to that question but I do think that's the vital question.

No it's not worth it. Especially when you see a country like the UK who has far more violent crimes than we do along with big brother watching them with cameras all over the place. We could save a ton of lives banning alcohol or cars too. Would it be worth losing those freedoms??? No. There's always a price to pay and banning things has proven not to be the answer countless times throughout history. Change our drug laws and have better background checks. Those 2 things would do far more than anything you guys are proposing.

[NY8123]

When will these people learn the simple truth of the problems in this country, my generation (the X- gens) want everyone to fix their problems for them and simply do not want to take responsibility for their lives. The rest of the world doesn't seem to have a problem with public nudity or violence in games and on TV but some how the youth of America are different, hummmmm I wonder why??????????

Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that't right, a little thing called parenting.

I'm playing Black Ops 2 last night with my boy (he is 14 going on 15), some douche bag is mic'ed up and saying "I hate N-word". My son looks at me and says "I wish people weren't so ignorant on here, why the hell do they have to be so damn ignorant!" [he pushes the mute all button]. "do they think they're cool because it actually shows how un-cool and uneducated they are".

There is no call for it and it is simply done out of ignorance but my son knows why it is ignorant to judge people based on race or religious differences. Maybe if more mommies and daddies started to pass along that message we as a Nation would craw out of the 1920's.

Of I course I told my son right on about his comments and then I said to him "must be his daddie didn't love him" lol. We laughed but the problem really isn't a laughing matter.

[MoFinz]

People have killed each other since time began. We will never stop the criminal intent on doing harm. When the blame for murder gets shifted to how it was done rather than why, we do a disservice to the victims. When you talk of denying them the tools to defend themselves, simply for political expediency, you only ensure more victims, not a safer society.

Some people on the left of this issue act as if disarming the nation would stop murders and violent crimes. Thats simply not realistic. All this babble about "if we can save just one life" garbage. That's akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water. Save one.....thousands more killed and wounded. Yeah, fair trade.

[Wildbill3]

I might get the clap from unprotected sex. doesn't mean i'm going to cut off my penis. I guess we could ban sex. or lock up vaginas and get a permit to use them.