Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

[Dolphins9954]

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

[Dolphins9954]

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.

I hate naggers too.

[Bumpus]

Ok, then. Just to clarify, you believe that gun control generally and a mandatory buyback specifically would result in an increase in gun violence? Would that be a fair characterization of your view?

As for total enforcement, the Australian initiative did not remove guns completely. It cut the number of homes with guns in half (removing about a fifth of the total number of guns), which coincided with a 59% drop in gun related homicide.

1. Sure.

2. I'm not concerned with Australia. That's not the US ... Take a look at Chicago (gun laws & violent crime rates)

[Dolphins9954]

1. Sure.

2. I'm not concerned with Australia. That's not the US ... Take a look at Chicago (gun laws & violent crime rates)

And the UK too.

[Bumpus]

And the UK too.

Meh, I'm not concerned with England either.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheWalrus]

1. Sure.

2. I'm not concerned with Australia. That's not the US ... Take a look at Chicago (gun laws & violent crime rates)

I would argue that Australia as a whole is a better model for how the US would react to such an initiative than how Chicago as a city reflects the US as a whole. Perhaps that's just me, but in Chicago specifically you're just one city in a state without the same laws. Not to mention from the dead center of Chicago to the border with Indiana is... what? Half an hour? An hour, maybe? In other words, we're talking about a pretty tainted sample here if you're trying to make a link between gun laws and gun violence in Chicago. They're doing what they can but that's really not very much.

I was actually just talking to a friend of mine the other day (unrelated to the gun issue) and we both came to the conclusion that if you had to pick a country on this planet that was more like the United States than any other... we'd both pick Australia. In other words, we'd pick them over England or Canada. It's the same kind of mix of a former English colony, with a population densely populated in the cities but with also a large rural sort of "cowboy" tradition and a mix of the rowdy, informal, individualistic attitude. There's even a similar history of repressing a native population (who in their case is also black).

(Yes, my friends and I sometimes discuss really boring ****.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

The main difference for now is that the shootings that happened over there genuinely changed public perception of the gun issue. When they decided to tackle the problem with the buyback, the population was in support. Despite recent events, I don't see the same thing here. Perhaps it will take a few more of these. Or maybe as a nation we just have a different perception of how much the freedom is worth.

Not that it really matters anyway, since you believe that doing an initiative like theirs here would increase gun violence. There's not really much common ground there to build on in a debate.

As a side note, I want you to know I have to scroll down a bit to type out a response to your posts because that gif with the bouncing titties is so goddamn distracting I can't think while they're up there jiggling.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Spesh]

Last time I checked citizens buying semi-auto rifles has been the law of the land for decades. As for explosives and other weapons, you're only proving my point that the 2nd has been regulated enough and now you guys want to take even more. Regulation = Banning almost every time. I say we ban anti-government speech or ban search warrants for drug or terror suspects too. Why would this be any different???

So something is acceptable so long as its done for decades? Drunk driving should never have been enforced because people got away with only fairly mild penalties for 70 years? If a drug has adverse side effects that the company couldnt have possibly seen coming, should they keep being able to sell it because they have sold it for a week? A month? A year? What is the deadline for banning something directly harmful? What is the time limit before something is considered acceptable? Slavery, which was protected by law, went on for generations yet we overturned and banned the practice. "Tradition", or time length, didnt matter. And it shouldnt now.

How have assault rifles and high capacity clips been regulated "enough"? Explosives are, absolutely, the crime rate using such items is hideously low. Why? Because such items are banned and those that can legally use such equipment are subject to heavy regulations. Part of Obama's "police state manifesto" was aimed at strengthing the fairly weak background checks, something many are fighting tooth and nail against.

Again, how come its suddenly "against your rights" to ban assault rifles when we already ban weaponry? You do not have the right to buy weapons that are to dangerous, to yourself and others. I have yet to see how adding a single classification to a list that already exists is suddenly persecution.
You can still arm yourself. You can still protect yourself and your property. You can still hunt or participate in sporting events. Your rights have not been violated. You just cant buy a type of weapon you used to be able to. Just like you cannot buy a whole laundry list of other weapons. You do not live in a free country, you cannot do anything you want anytime you want. You are bound by laws. The Constitution literally means Law of the land. Again, adding a provision to an existing law isnt persecution.

[Dolphins9954]

So something is acceptable so long as its done for decades? Drunk driving should never have been enforced because people got away with only fairly mild penalties for 70 years? If a drug has adverse side effects that the company couldnt have possibly seen coming, should they keep being able to sell it because they have sold it for a week? A month? A year? What is the deadline for banning something directly harmful? What is the time limit before something is considered acceptable? Slavery, which was protected by law, went on for generations yet we overturned and banned the practice. "Tradition", or time length, didnt matter. And it shouldnt now.

How have assault rifles and high capacity clips been regulated "enough"? Explosives are, absolutely, the crime rate using such items is hideously low. Why? Because such items are banned and those that can legally use such equipment are subject to heavy regulations. Part of Obama's "police state manifesto" was aimed at strengthing the fairly weak background checks, something many are fighting tooth and nail against.

Again, how come its suddenly "against your rights" to ban assault rifles when we already ban weaponry? You do not have the right to buy weapons that are to dangerous, to yourself and others. I have yet to see how adding a single classification to a list that already exists is suddenly persecution.
You can still arm yourself. You can still protect yourself and your property. You can still hunt or participate in sporting events. Your rights have not been violated. You just cant buy a type of weapon you used to be able to. Just like you cannot buy a whole laundry list of other weapons. You do not live in a free country, you cannot do anything you want anytime you want. You are bound by laws. The Constitution literally means Law of the land. Again, adding a provision to an existing law isnt persecution.

I can't buy a type of weapon that hundreds of thousands if not millions of us have bought legally and constitutionally since the creation of such weapons. (Meaning that we've ALWAYS had the right to buy these weapons). While a president gives far worse weapons to drug cartels and jihadists in Syria. Not to mention tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. And let's not forget that drone bombing campaign that makes Sandy Hook look like Disney World.

The problem with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it doesn't jive with what has been the law of the land forcenturies now. Americans have ALWAYS had the right to bear arms. Granted there has been plenty of regulations from us having weapons like explosives and automatics. But semi-autos have ALWAYS been available for us to own and purchase. You don't think it's a big deal because you probably don't own guns and never really got into your 2nd amendment rights. (forgive me I'm being a bit sterotypical here). But for millions of us it really is a BIG deal. Especially considering the fact that the 2nd amendment has probably been the most regulated and controlled amendment ever. When you consider that the founders were VERY liberal with weapons and arms back then. People owned cannons back then and it wasn't a big deal. So if anything it's been regulated enough and at a certain point we have to draw a line in the sand. Especially when the Anti 2nd-amendment crowd really wants to "regulate" the 2nd into extinction. The bills in New York and Mass. prove that point.

From what I gathered you support Americans only having revolvers and the like. Maybe if it was 150 years ago I would feel you on that one. But nowadays there are far better weapons than that and unfortunately the criminals have far better weapons than those days. No matter if you like it or not semi-auto handguns and rifles are the best defense against all potentially armed criminals today. Making a new provision mandating that law-abiding, 2nd amendment exercising citizens can no longer own semi-autos will only make it harder for those lawful citizens to defend themselves. Especially with 10 bullet clips. You better be a damn good shot in a high pressure situation that's for sure.

Bottom line I don't trust this government with this power and neither did the founders. A government that wages war without constitutional requirements. That drops drone bombs on people and countries that had nothing to do with 9-11. Even bombing women, children and Americans too. Passes laws like the Patriot Act and NDAA that have no regard for 4th amendment and 5th amendment natural rights. A government that spys and searches people without warrants. A government that will assassinate Americans without trial. A government that tortures. A government controlled by banks and the military industrial complex.

And this beauty.......

A government that defends DEA agents putting a gun to a little girl's head....


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


Don't trust this gang with this power.

[GoonBoss]

I wasted lots of my youth playing "Pong"


I hate tennis.

[NY8123]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well if the government was able to seize ALL guns, of course gun violence would lessen. Nobody would have 'em. .
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh hell no man.............I have skillzzzzz.........like nunchuku skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills... Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills not to mention I'm pretty good with a bow staff!!!