Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

[TheWalrus]

The government wouldnt just grab your weapon and give you the bird. You would be finacially compensated.

We have not reached a consensus on what the second amendment even means. There has been repeatedly debates and various clarifications for (at least) decades. The Supreme Court has...i wouldnt say changed its mind, but made differing rulings depending on who is on the bench. All of this is beside the point that you are already prevented from buying certain weapons. Thats "against your second amendment" right, but no one has seemed to mind all that much.

We've reached a consensus on the first amendment. Occassionally we need a clarification, especially when it involves new technology, but so far the rulings have stayed consistent: almost everything is allowed, no child porn.

And other countries that have banned the weapons have seen their crime rate drop. The world is a safer place. And id welcome a 3% decrease, that would save a hell of alot of lives. Isnt that a worthy goal?

The problem is that the gun lobby does their best to neuter whatever gun control bills are proposed and then comes along in the next debate and points to the neutered bill and claims it didn't work... ergo no gun control bill will work. If that's not the definition of a self fulfilling prophesy, I don't know what is. The end result of their actions is that you never really get a chance to answer the question that's really on everyone's mind: How many lives saved for how much less freedom? It's all supposition mixed with outrageous statements by both sides mixed with reheated culture war stuff that has little to do with the facts of gun violence, it's causes and the realities of the law.

Anyway, no one's talking about a plan ala Australia just yet. For one thing, I doubt they had a Constitutionally protected right to arms. We might one day fairly soon -- if not right now -- reach some kind of 2/3rds majority by population for strict gun control legislation in this country, but you're never going to get the 38 states it takes to ratify it. Not in the next 50 years, anyway.

The only way anything drastic is going to get done is by having majority of Supreme Court justices who believe the operative phrase in the 2nd amendment is not "shall not be infringed" but rather "well regulated." And even then... the Court is very cautious to lag behind public opinion on these matters so as to maintain their place as an unbiased legal arbiter. Even a justice like Elena Kagan, who is quite openly disdainful of a broad reading of the 2nd amendment, would be likely to tread carefully on behalf of judicial restraint.

[Spesh]

No.

Let's ban another constitutionally protected amendment in the Bill of Rights that's killed far more people than anything in the history of the planet. Let's ban religion.

As much as I hate religion and the zealots behind them "that has resulted in so many deaths that only the debt clock would beat it". I would never support banning, curtailing or infringing the Bill Of Rights and liberties that we're born with, even if it meant saving one life or less than 3%. The 2nd amendment along with ALL the rest has already been trampled on more than enough times. This attack is no different than the rest of them over the past 12 years and more. Once again government must take away liberties for our safety. And every time we lose both.

So we've reached an consensus on the second amendment? Last i checked, we were constantly debating it....like right now.

Taking a weapon off the "allowed to sell" list isnt the same as suppressing religion. Or are you arguing that people should be able to obtain and use explosives and surface to air weaponry?

Taking away peoples assault rifles but allowing them to keep various other weapons doesnt strike me as an annulment of the second amendment. You can bear arms. Amendment fulfilled.

[Spesh]

The problem is that the gun lobby does their best to neuter whatever gun control bills are proposed and then comes along in the next debate and points to the neutered bill and claims it didn't work... ergo no gun control bill will work. If that's not the definition of a self fulfilling prophesy, I don't know what is. The end result of their actions is that you never really get a chance to answer the question that's really on everyone's mind: How many lives saved for how much less freedom? It's all supposition mixed with outrageous statements by both sides mixed with reheated culture war stuff that has little to do with the facts of gun violence, it's causes and the realities of the law.

Anyway, no one's talking about a plan ala Australia just yet. For one thing, I doubt they had a Constitutionally protected right to arms. We might one day fairly soon -- if not right now -- reach some kind of 2/3rds majority by population for strict gun control legislation in this country, but you're never going to get 3/4ths of the states (38) states to ratify it. I don't see that happening any time in the next 50 years.

The only way anything drastic is going to get done is by having majority of Supreme Court justices who believe the operative phrase in the 2nd amendment is not "shall not be infringed" but rather "well regulated." And even then... the Court is very cautious to lag behind public opinion on these matters so as to maintain their place as an unbiased legal arbiter. Even a justice like Elena Kagan, who is quite openly disdainful of a broad reading of the 2nd amendment, would be likely to tread carefully on behalf of judicial restraint.

I completely agree. I stated earlier id prefer no bill at all instead of a bad one in cases like this. Before the Clinton ban i might have felt different, that opening the door would allow more measures to follow. I've learned my lesson.

Most of my argument has been personal point of view, what i would wish for in a ideal world. Just because id support a Australia like legislation doesnt mean i expect one. Its why i didnt freak out when Obama made his laughable announcement(save for the video game restriction talk here).

Id hope any law would be researched thoroughly. Id hope that there wouldnt be a black and white precendent for passing a law such as what were talking about. I agree that we be asking and answering: lives saved/freedom had. Which is why i have the opinion i have on weapons. If i have to read about casualties, id rather they be in the single digits. As crappy as it sounds, im comfortable with the single digit casualties that are often associated with handgun incidents. But im willing to surrender some of my freedoms to prevent the double digit casualties that are often associated with high capacity/higher danger weapons. Some disagree, but when tragedy is unavoidable its our responsibility as a society to limit the harm.

[TheWalrus]

One other thing, since I see the famous Benjamin Franklin quote about liberty and safety trotted out on this issue everywhere I look it seems.

The correct quote is:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Changing the way we look at the 2nd amendment is not the same thing as obtaining a little temporary safety. I know some are arguing it wouldn't result in any additional safety, and that's fine. But the gun control debate, like many debates in this country, is a policy debate about the line between liberty and law and order. Essential liberties are often parts of those debates. The freedom of Muslim women to wear the religiously mandated hadith versus society's right to demand photo ID that actually can identify you, for example.

What Franklin's talking about here is much more of a warning against doing what Lincoln did in the Civil War and suspending habeus corpus, or against stuff like HUAC, or the way the Patriot Act was rammed though Congress after 9/11 (the latter was eventually made more permanent, unfortunately, though various legal challenges have emerged to reign it in somewhat).

[Dolphins9954]

So we've reached an consensus on the second amendment? Last i checked, we were constantly debating it....like right now.

Taking a weapon off the "allowed to sell" list isnt the same as suppressing religion. Or are you arguing that people should be able to obtain and use explosives and surface to air weaponry?

Taking away peoples assault rifles but allowing them to keep various other weapons doesnt strike me as an annulment of the second amendment. You can bear arms. Amendment fulfilled.

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???

[Dolphins9954]

One other thing, since I see the famous Benjamin Franklin quote about liberty and safety trotted out on this issue everywhere I look it seems.

The correct quote is:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Changing the way we look at the 2nd amendment is not the same thing as obtaining a little temporary safety. I know some are arguing it wouldn't result in any additional safety, and that's fine. But the gun control debate, like many debates in this country, is a policy debate about the line between liberty and law and order. Essential liberties are often parts of those debates. The freedom of Muslim women to wear the religiously mandated hadith versus society's right to demand photo ID that actually can identify you, for example.

What Franklin's talking about here is much more of a warning against doing what Lincoln did in the Civil War and suspending habeus corpus, or against stuff like HUAC, or the way the Patriot Act was rammed though Congress after 9/11 (the latter was eventually made more permanent, unfortunately, though various legal challenges have emerged to reign it in somewhat).

The 2nd amendment is an essential liberty. So much so the founders made it the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights. Things like the Patriot Act, NDAA and warrantless searches are no different than the current assault on the 2nd amendment right now. Bush and company are no different than Obama and company when it comes to liberties in this country. No matter who's in office the Bill of Rights is always the enemy to these guys.

[MoFinz]

How many people were killed with a glock, sig sauer or other semi auto handgun last year versus how many were killed with semi auto rifle?

After the banning of semi auto rifles does nothing to appreciably lower violence, how long before another massacre ala Va. Tech occurs and the call goes out to ban glocks and .22's?

You're not going to curb the killing until you realize something. Your gun bans are only treating the symptoms, not the disease. You expect a legal solution to deter a criminals illegal concept. In fact, all you do is disarm someone and deny them the right to self protection they are guaranteed. How much longer do we have to wait for the people that just want to "do something" realize they are just wasting time and effort unless we do the right thing.

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

[TheWalrus]

You're not going to curb the killing until you realize something. Your gun bans are only treating the symptoms, not the disease.

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?

You expect a legal solution to deter a criminals illegal concept.

I don't think people expect to deter the instinct with a ban, and I don't think you think other people do, either. But doesn't it make sense that if guns are harder to get, fewer people -- including criminals -- will be able get them?

In fact, all you do is disarm someone and deny them the right to self protection they are guaranteed.

You say it's guaranteed, I say that's a matter of legal interpretation. The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" but it also says "well regulated." The gap between them is big enough to drive the 3rd Armored Division through.

[Dolphins9954]

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?



I don't think people expect to deter the instinct with a ban, and I don't think you think other people do, either. But doesn't it make sense that if guns are harder to get, fewer people -- including criminals -- will be able get them?



You say it's guaranteed, I say that's a matter of legal interpretation. The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" but it also says "well regulated." The gap between them is big enough to drive the 3rd Armored Division through.

It's says a "well regulated militia" not arms. In fact the only part that refers to arms is the part that says "shall not be infringed". The founders didn't have any problems with citizens having the best weapons at the time. Private people owned cannons too. Letters of marque and reprisal comes to mind.

The problem with the anti-2nd amendment "interpretation" is that you guys want to regulate the 2nd amendment to extinction. That's the real goal and something the founders would have been totally against. Your "interpretation" is just a cop-out to justify attacking the 2nd amendment. Focus on making sure bad people don't get guns. Which is something all of us want. And maybe even do something about the Drug War, which is the primary cause for most of the gun violence in this country. Then you guys might just accomplish reducing gun violence by dramatic levels while still upholding and defending our liberties.

[MoFinz]

[QUOTE=TheWalrus;1064567428]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? [QUOTE]

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?

I don't think people expect to deter the instinct with a ban, and I don't think you think other people do, either. But doesn't it make sense that if guns are harder to get, fewer people -- including criminals -- will be able get them?

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.

You say it's guaranteed, I say that's a matter of legal interpretation. The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" but it also says "well regulated." The gap between them is big enough to drive the 3rd Armored Division through.

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? 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.