Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.

VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Results 1 to 10 of 173

Thread: Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

Threaded View

  1. -10
    TheWalrus's Avatar

    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Room 101
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    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.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 01-19-2013 at 11:36 PM.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. 25 Years of Research on Violent Games
    By Locke in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 01:27 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-16-2006, 02:33 AM
  3. Violent Video Games Numb Players to Real-Life Brutality
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-10-2006, 07:38 AM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-30-2006, 06:09 PM
  5. well I introduced myself before
    By duss12 in forum Introduce Yourself!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2006, 03:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts