NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!

from the pr-is-a-skill dept

Thu, Jan 17th 2013 2:17pm — Timothy Geigner

Attention readers of this article! This is important to realize: I do not hate guns, the NRA, or freedom. While this is not the forum for any of us to discuss our personal philosophy regarding firearms or the 2nd amendment, let's just say my views are nuanced and leave it at that. Again, I do not hate guns. What I do hate, however, is hypocrisy and stupidity, and the NRA has a habit of occasionally engaging in both. I mean, the idea that doctors should by law not be allowed to ask questions about gun safety in "well-child" visits is just stubborn silliness. That kind of paranoia should be reserved for the lunatic fringe, not the most powerful firearms lobbying group in the country. Likewise, the insane idea that the 2nd amendment should be protected by treading upon the 1st and 4th amendments isn't just hypocritical, it's multiplicatively hypocritical.

But if you thought that kind of PR mistake was the zenith for the NRA with regards to their anti-video game stance, prepare yourselves for liftoff, because the NRA has released several shooting games, the latest of which is targeted at elementary-aged school children.

There have been a lot of people blaming violent video games for gun violence in America, especially in the wake of the tragic Newtown, Connecticut shootings. Chief among them, of course, was the National Rifle Association. In his comments after the shootings, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre blamed several video games that featured guns, like Bulletstorm and Splatterhouse, but left off titles like NRA: Varmint Hunter and NRA: Gun Club. He also failed to mention the new NRA branded iOS game which must have been in development at the time, NRA: Practice Range. The new game is recommended for ages four and up, probably because they don't want kids younger than four to see how much fun super-cool guns can be.

Now, in the interest of being fair here, there's an obvious difference in content between games like Bulletstorm and Practice Range or Varmint Hunter. The NRA isn't putting out games in which human being are shot. But that's a rather weak distinction to draw when you've spoken out so radioactively against violence in gaming. The simple glorification of guns for 4 years olds is probably not the best move PR-wise in the current atmosphere, but even having an NRA sponsored game for shooting animals raises questions. The line on shooting living things is crossed and it would be quite easy to point to harming animals as a predictive sign of criminality, violence and sociopathy. Why is the NRA providing a gaming avenue for such behavior while decrying other/more violent games for providing a gaming avenue for that same behavior?

It should be pointed out that, true to their words, the NRA is littering these games with gun safety tips, but from the standpoint of public relations that doesn't really soften how dumb a move this is. To be clear, I don't think the stupidity is in releasing these games. I'm fine with them. The problem is when you seek to deflect criticism for gun violence by pointing to games, all while you're also releasing shooting games, you lose a great deal of credibility. But when you put forth a game that gives you "one minute to fire off as many rounds as possible" and aims it, by their own words, at children as young as four years old, you just look like jackasses.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: guns, kids, shooting, video games
Companies: nra

234 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anon, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:19pm

Misleading
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/apple-raises-age-limit-for-violent-nra-target-practice-game/

According to this article Apple doesn't actually let you select an age level. You fill out a questionnaire and based off of that they assign a rating. It's not quite the same as making a game and saying, "Look kiddies! Play!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:24pm

Was the fact that it is a target shooting game and not violent get lost on you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gothenem (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re:
  Shooting a gun is a violent act. Regardless of what you are shooting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Uh, no it isn't. Shooting water bottles and watching them blow up, maybe. Punching holes in paper targets, not even close.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aerilus, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    hammering a nail is a violent act.
    swinging a bat is a violent act.
    cutting vegetables is a violent act.
    
    we shouldn't teach children not to run with scissors we should just ban them from touching them until they are an adult. we shouldent teach children about crossing the street, we should just ban them from crossing streets until they are an adult.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      hammering a nail is a violent act.
      swinging a bat is a violent act.
      cutting vegetables is a violent act.
      
      Seriously? With arguments like that it is not surprising the US mentality when it comes to guns is so different compared to the rest of the world ...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 6:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The reason our mentality is different is because many many many many many many many (i could do this all day till I get around over 100+ million) people in the United States own a gun. In fact, most of us own more than one gun. Of all these people who own guns the overwhelming majority of which purchased them legally, some didn't because we value freedom to purchase whatever the hell we want over being told by some ignorant holier-than-thou moron what we can or cannot spend our HARD earned money on.
        
        99.999999% of those people will never kill anyone. That is why our mentality is different, because legitimate gun owners just do not murder people -period-
        
        People who do you use guns to commit murder = criminals, and there's already 100's of laws saying they cannot do that, but guess what?? They don't give a rats ass about the law and never will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        martyburns (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 1:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Some Americans> "We want guns"!
        
        Pretty much the rest of the world> "You guys are fucking idiots".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Aerilus, 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        go google where all the us military bases are in the world, the rest of the world can look at us and say that we are gun crazy. but for a lot of the world we are the military.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        because legitimate gun owners just do not murder people -period-
        
        As proven every day countless times. LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is proven every day countless times. Millions of gun owners not killing people with the guns they own. Just like the millions of 'violent' video game players and 'violent' movie watchers not killing people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good point.
        
        I think it bears pointing out that the video games, in and of themselves, are not the point the NRA is making. Violence in many instances is motivated by our culture, which includes video games, but extends to movies, tv, out day to day conversations, and so forth.
        
        What conservatives, as opposed to specifically second amendment supporters do not seem to get, is that greed plays a very real role in creating a culture of violence as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is proven every day countless times.
        OK I'm not anti-firearm in any shape, but this graph seems to suggest something very different. It may well not be gun ownership per-se, but logic suggests there is something wrong with how the US deals with firearms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, and if you ban cars there will be fewer deaths by car accident.
        
        The point is that there are similar rates of violent crime. Getting rid of guns doesn't do much, if anything at all, to save lives.
        
        It does, however, help the government if they decide they want to abuse their power and ignore the popular will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, and if you ban cars there will be fewer deaths by car accident.
        True as far as it goes, but I in no way suggested guns (or cars) should be banned. I just said that logic suggests something wrong with the US approach. In fact mostly the car example supports my point. Look at traffic deaths globally. Note especially the statistics per 100,000 vehicles - i.e. those somewhat normalised - that suggest that countries with stronger traffic enforcement and/or better mandated driver training tend to have less traffic deaths rather than those with less cars.
        
        The point is that there are similar rates of violent crime. Getting rid of guns doesn't do much, if anything at all, to save lives.
        Again, you're the one saying "ban guns", not me. I do think there are sensible things that could be mandated short of banning that might make sense... locked, safe storage, storing ammunition separately etc... nothing that stops you owning a weapon just mandating some basic common sense about how they are kept.
        As for "similar rates of violent crime", well possibly. This table doesn't include the US for some reason but a bit of poking around suggests the US is somewhere around 6th on that list, ie somewhere around the Ukraine for murder rates. Not necessarily or even probably related directly to guns, but it hardly supports your point either.
        
        It does, however, help the government if they decide they want to abuse their power and ignore the popular will.
        The US government is visibly doing that almost every day so when are you going to start using all those guns then? What's the magic "abuse"? Again, I'm not against gun ownership at all, but this has to be the lamest justification for it I've seen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:07pm
        
        Blah blah blah
        So if I'm not out shooting someone RIGHT NOW, and then running here to print about it in public on the interwebz, my point is lost?
        
        The next step beyond stopping the ongoing progress of limiting gun access is to press for a more Constitutional treatment of our armed forces and of our international policy. We should have a well regulated militia. We don't. No one cares. That is bad.
        
        I am not going to go shoot people for it. Your argument is beyond ridiculous. I, and others like me concerning all sorts of policy issues, every day of the week, week after week for years and years, are going to try to present our ideas in a cogent manner.
        
        So far you have presented nothing contrary to the assumptions that led to the creation of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the US, nor of the second amendment. Your suggestion that the government wander from house to house making sure all our guns are stored safely is duly noted, and I'll remember it the next time someone complains about all the various reasons the government has for invading our privacy that leftists somehow magically forget when speaking on the topic of guns.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Blah blah blah
        Er.. WHAT????? My original point, which was not responding to you, is that the statistics suggest otherwise than "millions of gunowners daily prove..." and my the point of my response to you was that, like most other things, proper education and training usually work better than banning things but that trying to dismiss any link between the amount of guns in the US and the problems they cause so cavalierly is not supported by such evidence as exists.
        
        Your ranting and completely mis-paraphrasing notwithstanding, I do not believe that there is any direct link between the amount of gun ownership and the amount of, say, homicide but I also don't think it helps anything to try and pretend there is no link at all.
        
        If you want to reply again, you might try relating it to what I actually said rather than your chosen talking points.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 11:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Millions of gun owners not killing people with the guns they own
        
        Right. So what does the guns/population ratio from the US compared to other countries tell you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - aerilus, 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        do your homework
        
        http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Seegras (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm not quite sure. Where do you draw the line? Is throwing things violent? Smashing them around with a racket? Kicking them?
    
    Or, on the other side, is shooting a flare gun a violent act? Or shooting a space gun to propel objects into orbit?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What? How would that be more violent than anything else that involves kinetic force? Are you completely against physics or something?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - McCrea (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Shooting a gun is a violent act. Regardless of what you are shooting."
    
    Just like cutting something with a knife, or stabbing something with a fork, or biting something with your teeth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 11:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't see how... When I was firing a gun at some cans as a kid the last thing that was on my mind was violence... I grew up in the Mortal Kombat days and I remember that shit storm very well. Thinking it was gonna turn everyone into homicidal maniacs.
    
    Did it have a effect on me personally no.. It's a game and even as a kid I knew the difference between a game and real life.
    
    It's sad in tragedies like this because everyone decides to play the blame game. The shooter is the one that should be blamed 100 percent. The human mind is complex and even in a perfect environment someone can still turn out to be a sadistic bastard.
    
    If we should be researching anything it should be the human mind and ways to wipe such traits from existence before birth. Information is the cure to everything and we'd be making a lot more progress if people would put their petty differences aside.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    And that's how duck hunt turned me into a violent criminal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And that's how duck hunt turned me into a violent criminal.
      
      That damned laughing dog is what turned me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re:
  How is shooting fake targets that much different than shooing clearly fake, pixelated "people"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aerilus, 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    how is shooting real people different form shooting targets? perception is everything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2013 @ 11:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The context of this whole discussion revolves around gun violence in schools. If the NRA is correct that video games were involved in any way, then there probably _is_ a difference between shooting targets and shooting people.
      
      Nobody, as far as I know, claim that the popularity of Super Mario Bros caused children to go out and jump on turtles. Nobody's claimed that Mortal Kombat caused children to rip off people's arms. Nobody claimed that Castlevania led to a rise in whip-related violence in our schools.
      
      Personally, I'm not convinced that video games had anything to do with the recent string of school shootings. But if violent games are related to the shootings, then it's probably going to be games that relate to shooting people.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2013 @ 2:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        yup, pacman and burgertime are responsible for the high rate of obesity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:35pm
  
  Re:
  "Was the fact that it is a target shooting game and not violent get lost on you?"
  
  Was the fact that this point was made in the article get lost on you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:36pm

This blog amazes me
This blog has a long history of crying from the rooftop about the 1st and 4th amendments and appears to have a very pro-constitutional stance. Except for when it comes to the 2nd amendment. What gives, the constitution either is or is not a great document and maybe the best government foundation this world has seen to date.

Yes, the NRA has poor timing here, but come on, this blog has defended video games for a long time and this is a target shooting game aimed at teaching, not killing.

Also, sniping the NRA as being a "lobby" is not intellectually honest (a term that this blog loves to use). The NRA is backed by hundreds of thousands of PEOPLE. It may have some corporate backers as well, but the NRA is not the normal lobby and you know it.

Please, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to treat everything evenly or you undermine your reputation and show your bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:41pm
  
  Re: This blog amazes me
  In summary, what this blog says is the constitution is great and should be obeyed. Except when you disagree with it, then it should be ignored. Unless you are ignoring the part of it you like, then it should be obeyed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:58pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    Like 'well regulated'
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - varagix, 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      Look up the period meaning of "regulated" in the military, as well as at the various writings of people like Madison and Jefferson.
      
      "Regulated" in military terms of the time meant experienced, disciplined, and sufficiently armed. And a militia meant a citizen army, as opposed to a standing army. So in this context, the second amendment refers to a need of an experienced and well armed citizenry to secure freedom, and restricting government from preventing it's individual citizens from exercising the right to arm themselves is the core of the amendment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon B. (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re: This blog amazes me
  If you disagree with someone, you call them a "lobby" or a "special interest group", because lobbyists and special interests are ebil. If you agree with them, they're called a constituency or "the ____ vote". This is true of corn farmers, labor unions, gun rights groups, and pretty much anything else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pseudonym, 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:11pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    "Special interest group" isn't perjorative. I use it all the time to refer to groups whose interests aren't the same mine.
    
    The NRA is not a special interest group. It does not lobby on behalf of the interests of responsible gun owners. It lobbies on behalf of the interests of gun manufacturers, sometimes against the interests of responsible gun owners. It is an industry lobby group, and therefore presumed evil until proven benign.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:45pm
  
  Re: This blog amazes me
  This wasn't at all anti second amendment. Did you even read the article or do you just blindly assume any post negative about the NRA is a post against the second?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:50pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    It's opening paragraph was insipid. I will read it momentarily, but you do not try to pass yourself off as gun control neutral and then whine that the NRA objects to the government polling about guns in conjunction with something to do with health care.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      I'm not gun control neutral. I think the government is in the business of gun control far more than it ever should have been, and I think the NRA is nuts to object to doctors asking their patients if a gun is in the house.
      
      I have not heard of the NRA objecting to the government "polling about guns in conjunction with something to do with health care" because as far as I am aware, the government has never done that. If the government were to do that, and the NRA were to object, I might be right there with them, depending on the circumstances of the polling and the objections, but that is a devil whose details are not yet known.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        It's like asking, "Do you have roller skates in your house?"
        
        It has nothing to do with health. It's purported value is in preventing accidents, but that is not what health care is for.
        
        I've posted elsewhere in this thread already about the portion of the PPAHCA that had to do with guns. That is exactly where the NRA's objection to such questions came from. The fear is that trumped up diagnoses of possible mental health issues coupled with the gun related questions would result in innocent people getting guns confiscated.
        
        Again, a complex issue, but not one revealing idiocy on the part of the NRA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I'd have the same number of problems with the NRA (or it's equivalent roller-skating lobbying group) objecting to doctors asking patients if they have roller-skates in the house as I do with the NRA crafting a bill in FL to prevent doctors from asking.
        
        The relevant linked to article had zero to do with the PPACA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 7:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Well, I have no idea what you're on about sorry. What're they gonna do, prescribe you a skating pill?
        
        It's an invasion of privacy. But I guess as long as the government isn't hacking your email, privacy is meaningless?
        
        I just don't get it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Do you consider it an invasion of your privacy if I ask you if you own a gun? Should the NRA lobby to make me asking that question illegal? The government wasn't asking doctor's to do this yet the NRA lobbied FL to make it illegal for a Dr to ask. If you think that information should be private, tell the doctor that if he asks.
        
        What are you on about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:51pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    I read the post and all the others that mention the NRA and the 2nd amendment here in the past. And yes, this post is anti-NRA and anti-2nd amendment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      I'm a huge second amendment proponent. I fail to see how this post is in any way anti-2nd amendment. Pointing to logical inconsistencies and hypocritical statements by a group that is in favor of X is not the same as being anti-X. Even being anti-group-that-favors-X is not the same as being anti-X. I don't like Hustler or Larry Flynt, but I love me some 1st amendment. I'm against PETA, but I'm in favor of animal rights. The NRA is being inconsistent here but I love the 2nd amendment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      anti-2nd amendment.
      
      Um. No. It's not.
      
      Look, I know some people like to read stuff into things, but this is beyond ridiculous. Nothing in this post was anti-2nd Amendment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Doe, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I only read into things when there is long history on the stance and this blog has a long history of being anti-gun. I have called you out on that before and this is the first time you have responded, but you didn't really respond did you?
        
        Mike, I enjoy reading this blog and will admit that you have completely changed my mind about copyrights and patents. I originally thought you were an idiot when I first arrived here. But over time, your well reasoned posts have made me do a 180. But trotting out the constitution when it suits you and ignoring it when it doesn't makes you as bad as those in government you complain about who trample on your favorite amendments. Either the constitution is to be obeyed or it isn't, be consistent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        First of all, Mike didn't write this article, so even if this article were anti-2nd amendment, that wouldn't be an inconsistency on Mike's part.
        
        Second, this article isn't anti-2nd amendment. I'm a proponent of the 2nd amendment. I love it. I think it's trivialized far too often. I fail to see how this article is anti-2nd amendment. Please, please, please point me to where all this anti is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Doe, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        No, Tim wrote the article, but Mike responded to it. And yes, I have responded to Mike's posts in the past so he and this blog are are inconsistent on their belief in the amendments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Then point out the inconsistency. Please. I've read this blog for years. I've never seen Mike advocate for the abolition of the 2nd amendment or anything close to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        (crickets ...)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Are you serious? I mean he just did that. The inconsistency is:
        
        "trotting out the constitution when it suits you and ignoring it when it doesn't makes you as bad as those in government you complain about who trample on your favorite amendments. Either the constitution is to be obeyed or it isn't, be consistent."
        
        No one said Mike advocated for the abolition of the 2nd amendment either so that's a straw man.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Some random commenter saying a blog is inconsistent isn't proof of inconsistency. How about linking to an example of two posts or comments by Mike that show his alleged inconsistentcy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        You don't need two. You need to know that Tech Dirt supports the first amendment, and you need to acknowledge that this and the two posts it links to are anti second amendment, which pretty much everyone here who is pro second amendment is telling you it is.
        
        At the very least it is awfully sloppy work if the goal was to avoid looking anti second amendment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 1:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        everyone here who is pro second amendment is telling you it is
        I'm pro second amendment and I don't think it is anti-second amendment.
        
        I've asked before. I'll ask again. Where in this article is there anything that is anti-second amendment? Quote it please. Show me the lines.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        This post. The one we are commenting on.
        
        This one.
        
        Here.
        
        You saying you are pro second amendment is meaningless. Obama says he's pro second amendment. Demonizing the NRA over the issues referenced in this piece AND the two articles linked that also demonize the NRA for no good reason are anti-second amendment positions. You can't demonize the largest second amendment supporting group in the country over something as nonsensical as this and then turn around and say, "But I support the second amendment!"
        
        You may have some half hearted sentiments, I don't know. What I know is this post set off a firestorm of complaints, and those of you defending it are tone deaf - far more tone deaf than the NRA you're complaining about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        So your argument basically boils down to "having anything but 100% positive feelings for and agreement with the NRA at all times means you are against the second amendment"? I don't like Larry Flynt or the Westboro Baptist Church. Am I now anti 1st amendment?
        
        If that's not your argument then stop evading. Point to one line in the article that is anti second amendment. I don't want to hear about where the article is poking fun at the NRA or even being anti NRA. I want to see the part of the article that says people should not have the right to bear arms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        No, that is not my argument, as anyone who read what I wrote can see.
        
        Pick a line that is anti NRA in this piece or the other two it links to, and explain to me how there is really anything that bad about the NRA's stance. I have explained why I think the complaints are ridiculous time and time again in these comments. My user name is "shane". Hit Ctrl-f, type shane, and read away.
        
        Otherwise post an argument of your own in support of the idea that this piece is anything other than a poorly reasoned slam on the biggest pro second amendment organization there is.
        
        No one owes you the hoop jumping you constantly demand. Read.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Let me make it even more painfully easy for you.
        
        Hit the "view in thread" link, crtl-f, search "Very well put in my opinion.", and read the post directly above that.
        
        Not MY post, the one I am responding to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        So you've shown how the post can be considered anti NRA. That comment shows it clearly. But that's not what I'm asking for. You're going off about this post being anti-2nd amendment. That's what I'm asking for. Unless you're argument is that anti-NRA == anti-2nd amendment, you've not shown how it is anti-2nd amendment. And if that is your argument your going to have to do a lot of work to prove why that is correct as I've just given you an example of why being anti-(supporter of some amendment) is not the same as being anti-(amendment).
        
        I'll go so far as to concede that Dark Helmet's post is anti-NRA. Perhaps Dark Helmet hates the NRA and this post's sole intention is to get other's to hate the NRA as well. I'll grant that, but still ask how is it anti-2nd amendment. That's the claim you made, now prove it. Surely if you read this article and came to that conclusion then there is at least one place you can point to that suggests American's should not have the right to bear arms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I didn't just say it was NRA. I said the reasoning behind it being anti-NRA is bogus. Because it is anti-NRA and the rationale is bogus, one then begins to go through the mental checklist as to why anyone would bother writing it.
        
        In case you haven't heard, there've been a few very public shootings lately, and the Democratic party is going gonzo trying to push more restrictive gun control laws.
        
        Into this atmosphere steps a writer, writing on a tech blog no less, dogging out the biggest player in defense of gun ownership, and over nothing. "Oh GOD, they made video games OF THEIR OWN! Where people... SHOOT... THINGS!!! Oh HOW HYPOCRITICAL!!!!"
        
        (oh, btw they're games don't depict people shooting people but that really doesn't matter I love the 2nd amendment go usa)
        
        Pfft.
        
        Look at the thread where lawmakers are promoting a law to label video games - labeling the games already have. That thread is dead. Know why? Because there's nothing in it that can be seen as anti-anything but stupid laws. That and its not about anything that anyone is up in arms about.
        
        The fault for this thread getting bogged down on 2nd amendment issues is not the readers. It's the writer.
        
        Pro tip - if you have to preface your writing with, "believe me, I have no problem with such and such," you're about to piss off all the people who like such and such.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2013 @ 4:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        The article simple points out the hypocrisy of the NRA. Nothing more. Anything you read into it is coming more from your own delusions than the actual words on the page.
        
        By the way? 'Pro tips' are just another way of saying 'I'm an asshole, and you're just wrong.'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 9:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I thought it was a warm fuzzy... Darn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        "But trotting out the constitution when it suits you and ignoring it when it doesn't makes you as bad as those in government you complain about who trample on your favorite amendments."
        
        Okay, the comments were funny at first, but are you people fucking KIDDING ME!?!?!? Please cite me a single line in the piece that said anything about owning a gun one way or the other. Let me break it down for you guys, since you apparently can't read and couldn't find the word nuance if the dictionary were shoved up your asses:
        
        The problem is the hypocrisy in decrying games and drawing a weak line in the sand by producing your own game that involves firearms. It's a critique of the NRA's PR, not of gun ownership, the NRA in general, or the 2nd amendment. For Christ's sake, there are actual enemies of gun ownership out there (and I'm not one of them) and they point to comment thread travesties like this as evidence that you people are INSANE.
        
        I try to keep a level head in the comments of my own articles, but you people have some serious fucking inabilities when you let your ideologies get in the way of being able to read something objectively.
        
        For fuck's sake....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Joe Dirt, 17 Jan 2013 @ 7:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I think everyone is getting the wrong idea about the Video Games issue. The NRA is pointing out that there are many contributing factors to gun violence and violence in general. Why target the 2nd amendment and not the 1st? I dare anyone to prove that violent entertainment has had zero influence on any of the recent tragic events. It can't be done. The fact is, we may never know why these people did what they did.
        
        That being said, The price of Freedom is risk. You risk hearing words you wish were never spoken, seeing others act in a manner that you find reprehensible, and being exposed to the world for what it really is, a dangerous, complicated, and unpredictable place. No matter how hard you try to prevent them, bad things happen. Placing blame after the fact seems hollow and a little insincere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beech, 18 Jan 2013 @ 1:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        "I dare anyone to prove that a conspiry by Bigfoot and Martians has had zero influence on any of the recent tragic events. It can't be done."
        
        Yeah, there's lots of negatives we can't prove.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Joe Dirt, 18 Jan 2013 @ 4:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        There is one thing about this discussion that CAN and HAS BEEN proven historically, impirically, and statistically. Banning guns doesn't work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Please cite me a single line in the piece that said anything about owning a gun one way or the other.
        
        Challenge accepted:
        
        But [the obvious difference in content between games like Bulletstorm and Practice Range or Varmint Hunter] is a rather weak distinction to draw when you've spoken out so radioactively against violence in gaming.
        
        Here you're literally saying the distinction between target practice or hunting and shooting people is rather weak when it comes to violence in gaming. The issue is there is no violence in target practice, none at all, and the implication that owning a gun and shooting it at a paper target is violent is inescapably anti-gun ownership. At a minimum anti-unfettered gun ownership.
        
        By way of analogy what you did was like labeling someone a hypocrite because they decried the glorification of recreational drug use in games and then went on to released a game where you play a pharmacist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Unless, of course, by "violence" one means any sudden movements, loud noises, or flashes of light.
        
        It concerns me a lot that people do not get the distinction.... A lot.
        
        Good post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        "Here you're literally saying the distinction between target practice or hunting and shooting people is rather weak when it comes to violence in gaming."
        
        None of that has ANYTHING to do with owning a gun in real life, so you failed in your attempt. You people do love to jump at shadows, don't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Of course it does. If target practice is violent in a video game, obviously this extends to real target practice, and hence to the idea of owning a gun for target practice.
        
        Take a few deep breaths. You're in danger of splitting a blood vessel for no good reason.
        
        This article IS anti second amendment. That's not the end of the universe. Heck, you look to be anti second amendment so you should be glad Tech Dirt supports your cause.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I think the point of contention is how much the NRA has criticized violence in games. Did they specifically limit their criticism to games where you shoot people, or was the criticism more general and seemed to be directed all forms of gun violence?
        
        If it's the former then publishing those games is fine, but if it's the latter then it does seem a bit hypocritical. If the latter, they're basically saying "we condemn violence in games in general. By the way we're releasing a game where you shoot animals".
        
        With that said, the article is not criticizing the NRA. Rather, the article describes how the public will likely perceive the NRA's stance. It doesn't matter if the NRA is right or wrong, hypocritical or not; when it comes to PR all that matters is what the public understands and believes.
        
        The NRA might have made a distinction between games where you shoot people and games where you shoot animals and targets, but if the public doesn't see the distinction then this leads to bad PR.
        
        Read the article again and nowhere you will find direct criticism of the NRA, you'll only see speculation at how the NRA will look like. A few quotes from the article (I bolded the important parts):
        
        "from the standpoint of public relations that doesn't really soften how dumb a move this is"
        
        "But when you put forth a game that gives you "one minute to fire off as many rounds as possible" and aims it, by their own words, at children as young as four years old, you just look like jackasses."
        
        It's all just commentary of what the public is likely to think of the NRA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        They don't decry JUST games. That's the straw man you're knocking down, not the sum total of their position on the cultural affect on human behavior.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I only read into things when there is long history on the stance and this blog has a long history of being anti-gun. I have called you out on that before and this is the first time you have responded, but you didn't really respond did you?
        
        Oh come on. Where? Where have we been "anti-gun". Point it out. We'll wait.
        
        Mike, I enjoy reading this blog and will admit that you have completely changed my mind about copyrights and patents. I originally thought you were an idiot when I first arrived here. But over time, your well reasoned posts have made me do a 180. But trotting out the constitution when it suits you and ignoring it when it doesn't makes you as bad as those in government you complain about who trample on your favorite amendments. Either the constitution is to be obeyed or it isn't, be consistent.
        
        The entire basis of this paragraph is that we're anti-2nd amendment. But you have yet to point to a single post where we are anti-2nd amendment, so the basis of the paragraph makes no sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I'm hard pressed to figure out what part of this post isn't anti-second-amendment.
        
        You're viciously mocking the largest pro second amendment organization in the country because they "gasp" made some video games that would introduce people to guns. The games, by your author's own admission, are significantly different in not being splatter fest games where you shoot at people. And yet your author acts as if it is the most ridiculous thing in the UNIVERSE that someone would think they are different from the video games the NRA complains about.
        
        In what conceivable UNIVERSE does that make a lick of sense?
        
        There is absolutely, positively nothing about this article that is not anti second amendment. It is nothing but a broad frontal attack on the credibility of the largest group in the USA that supports that amendment, and anyone daft enough to be a member or think anything mildly positive about it.
        
        As if that weren't enough, the two articles linked are also ridiculously anti second amendment.
        
        I have said this before, but just because I think it is so cute, I will say it again. Aztecs used to like to play a game, and the winner of the game got to be a human sacrifice.
        
        Culture affects behavior.
        
        The medical issue is just specious. My second favorite already used joke on this thread - what are the doctors going to do, prescribe you a gun safety pill? Or is it that doctors have special training in telling people, "Hey, keep that locked up would you?"
        
        Putting practices into place where your doctor starts nosing around about what you own is just a violation of privacy rights, which you appear to dislike only when it involves a computer I guess.
        
        Anyhow.... it's not like I am going to stop reading Techdirt over it, but trust me, you come across as anti second amendment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 1:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Just because they are criticizing NRA and NRA is strongly for the 2nd Amendment it does not mean they are anti 2nd Amendment. I criticize the Catholic Church in general and specifically fundamentalist groups like ECPAT. And I do it fiercely. Yet, if you ever suggest I'm anti-God or anti-Jesus I'll simply tell you to go sodomize yourself with a retractable baton. Because my beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with the criticism I engage.
        
        Brazil has a law that reserves quotes of federal university graduation internships for black people. I am vehemently against this because it creates a dangerous precedent and distinction and only exacerbates the racist tendency of the society. By your logic I'm some sort of racist. But my girlfriend is black. So there you go.
        
        Same thing here, they are criticizing NRA for their double standards and hypocrisy which seem blatant to me. Maybe you are letting some sort of bias contaminate your own judgments? That's valid for all other critics that keep yelling TD is anti-2nd or anti-guns..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        As I said before, the part of it that is anti Second Amendment is the REASON for the COMPLAINT.
        
        Nothing in this article points to anything the NRA is doing that is all that bad. They say video games may cause violence. I think violent society causes violent video games. Psychologically there is a feedback loop of some sort there, for sure, as it is more or less impossible to separate motives from behaviors.
        
        So their position on video games is based on reasonable assumptions, and they have gone on to make video games they feel send a healthier message than, say, Grand Theft Auto IV.
        
        They're just lobbying for a more intentional culture, which is something I believe in deeply.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2013 @ 5:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        We didn't say bad. We said stupid. There's a difference. You're ability to jump to conclusions is astounding, and possibly worthy of the circus. Or Congress, which amounts to the same thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2013 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        "They say video games may cause violence"
        
        And some have claimed that gays cause natural disasters, but neither have provided any proof
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 4:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Shane, I took a look over your blog. It's visually well put together. Even more beneficial, some of the content on there tells me everything I need to know about you to completely ignore your extremism.
        
        Cheers and toodles!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Nice smear job. Have a good day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I originally thought you were an idiot when I first arrived here.
        
        Right back at ya. Only you haven't given anyone reason to do a 180.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re: This blog amazes me
  Did you bother to read the article? Do you understand what a nuanced view is?
  
  And serious, the NRA isn't a lobbying organization? Are you brain-damaged? I'll agree they're not the "normal" lobbying organizations - they're one of the most powerful.
  
  While there are certainly some negative connotations, a lobby/lobbyist is not all bad. There are some good ones, ones that I'm fine with calling lobbyists as well as supporting myself with support and money - the ACLU and EFF, for instance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:48pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    I dunno. Name me another "lobbying" organization where the customer sends the lobbying arm of the industry money specifically so they can lobby? I'm not thinking of one off hand.....
    
    Looks more like a corporate sponsor for a grass roots cause to me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      Jesus, are you that dense? Just because the NRA is just composed of people (if I got it right no industry there, right?) it does not mean it is not a lobby. For fucks sake, all this intervention and whining towards the Government if that's not lobbying then I don't know what it is. EFF also has it's own share of lobby, the Church has and yet the Church was surely not created with the intention of lobbying...
      
      Jesus...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    One can have a nuanced view and still be unapologetically either pro or anti second amendment.
    
    "You keep using that word...."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jameshogg (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re: This blog amazes me
  It is possible for even the founding fathers of America to be wrong. In fact, since they came from an Enlightenment tradition, they would be the first to tell you that they are not infallible. Jefferson supported slavery, but that is not what we take from him. "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama" as Christopher Hitchens used to say. There were also people around that time also saying that in order for America to stay free from corruption there would have to be a revolution every 20 years...
  
  So it is quite possible for them to be wrong about guns, just as it is possible for them to be wrong about copyright. The whole point about humanity's progression is that you correct the mistakes of the previous generations. There will be generations ahead of US who will look back at the awful things WE have done, such as our cruelty towards animals, the nasty treatment of drug users by locking them up, the futility of hunting down file sharers as well as the unjustness of copyright, and many more that I myself am not even aware of.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:20pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    I agree, they could have been wrong about some things, but about guns they were not. It is there to protect against a tyrannical government, something they had first hand knowledge of. If you believe that this government could never go that way, you are extremely naive. In fact, the only evidence you need to see that they can is to see the pace at which our freedoms and liberties are being trampled or taken away today.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      Yo dawg, do you think, even with guns, that the ordinary guy who learns how to use a hunting rifle or what not is going to have ANY chance against all the government army equipement, training and support?
      
      The argument for protection against the government is just silly, this is 2013 not 1700s, even if 10, 20 or 30% of the population knew how to use a gun, less than half of that are actualy trained at actual armed combat.
      
      The thought of thinking guys with hunting rifles can stand a chance against properly trained military is insane, but hey... that seems like a nice excuse for all the deaths so far... A hypothetical defense against a hypothetical "war" that would very very likely end in massive defeat...
      
      I see this argument used a lot and I simply can't understand, what do you think the 21st century US military these days isn't just going to mop the floor with you and your hobby gun?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - aerilus, 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        the viet cong disagree as do many many other conflicts where guerrilla forces were able to drive out dictators. when the revolutionary war came about brittain had a world wide empire and was considered the pinnacle of human civilization. it doesn't matter weather its the 1700's or 2013 human nature hasn't changed hell we just took over another country and bombed the crap out of pretty much because our president wanted to. which reminds me the mujahedin against the Russians
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jameshogg (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      There are scenarios where supporting the citizen's right to build and own guns is justified. If a totalitarian state made its way into office, we can safely say that global humanity is now at war with it. I uphold this principle against regimes such as Saddam Hussein's.
      
      But when it comes to democratic societies, mentalities start to vary.
      
      The whole idea of a democratic government being afraid of citizens with guns has to depend on the following: the citizen needs to have access to buy a gun, has to afford to buy a gun, has to actually have the gun, has to keep the gun loaded, has to be able to shoot the gun more accurately than trained soldiers of the state military, and has to have the WILL to shoot the gun which is surely asking a lot from someone who has never killed anybody.
      
      In order for you to be consistent, you would have to justify the compulsory possession of guns as well as compulsory gun training and psychological repression of guilt in relation to killing. Otherwise, what have trained governments and trained soldiers got to fear? Never mind the arsenal the military have that are much, much more powerful than the gun.
      
      Perhaps the founding fathers could not see this on the count of the "first hand knowledge" you talked about. I'd prefer to say "first hand bias", as they assumed the average layman would supposedly having the same degree of bravery that they had. Also, what would their answer be to the government's self-granted permission to have missiles and bombs on planes? No gun can shoot a plane high enough that can still drop bombs. And it would be unrealistic to expect the layman to have his own plane and bombs, let alone a pilot's licence.
      
      The question of "who do you call against the police?" can be best understood by realising that there are other police stations to call. And if the ENTIRE police are corrupt in a fascist manner, fair enough you would be in a rouge-state scenario which probably means war. Although, the government would be in possession of too many bomb-dropping planes for any 2nd amendment law to matter. Here, you need help from abroad, not within. Just as democracies can hold each citizen interdependently accountable, so too can all democracies in the world hold each other to account. And it is here where you can call upon outside support in the form of fighter jets and the like.
      
      The clich� is probably true that "guns don't kill people". However, I have a corollary: "nuclear bombs don't kill people". What I want to know is what is it about the 2nd amendment that permits guns but not anything else, such as flame throwers, grenades, cluster bombs, turrets in your gardens, mines, chemical weapons, biological viruses, etc. They are all "arms", too. What makes the gun so special? I am sure if everybody possessed a nuclear bomb, no government would dare oppress its citizens, yet you would be hard pushed to see how this is justified. But what we do have is a United States where there are more guns than people, yet the government continues to trespass on freedoms for fear of bugger all.
      
      It is often said that if somebody had a gun during the Dark Knight Rises premier, fewer people could have died since somebody would have put the killer down. But again, putting the burden on a probably youthful person to start killing halfway through a good time at the movies even in order to save the lives of others is no doubt asking too much for it to be realistically expected. And what if others in the audience who also had guns to defend themselves ended up mistaking the first defending shooter as the psycho and shot HIM instead? Cinemas are fairly dark: it is quite possible to get confused. I have never really heard Libertarians answer these kinds of questions before.
      
      Sure, knives can be weapons too. But they can also be butter spreaders and scissors, just like a rock can be blunt enough to kill people but act as an efficient paperweight. The thing about the gun is that its only purpose seems to be killing organisms, which brings it into moral question in a different way.
      
      Even although what would solve this issue is the uninvention of the gun, I would not want it to happen nor block anybody from knowing how to build one. It is a matter of principle that knowledge is always liberating in this way (if we know how to build nuclear bombs, we can stop malicious people getting their hands on uranium and possibly use nuclear bombs to stop incoming asteroids heading towards Earth). And that is what I would say needs to be acknowledged as the true emancipator. A government will never be oppressive enough to uninvent the gun, and as long as that is the case we can fight totalitarian regimes off in different circumstances other than continued, unnecessary proliferation of guns where it is not required.
      
      If fascism occurs, build your own guns and buy them abroad. Oppressive states cannot monitor every inch of every border. If not, do not allow useless objects to commit harmful actions by taking them out of circulation. I highly doubt the U.K., where I live, will turn into an oppressive state any time soon with its ban on guns. We like to state the nastiness of knife crime more than gun crime to be honest. However if it does turn oppressive, I'll know that countries who are willing to defend democracy will be willing to give me guns. And grenades.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Or just don't ban them to begin with.
        
        I mean, seriously. We already jail a larger percentage of our population than China. Do we really need another excuse for Uncle Sam to come nosing around looking to jail some more.
        
        I will say this in mild support of your general sentiments. Neither party has taken Section I Article 8 of the Constitution seriously for a long, long time. We now have exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent - a massive standing army and no effective militia. So I suppose you are to be excused for having no clue what you are talking about in the historical sense concerning the need to protect one's self from one's government.
        
        By the time the totalitarian is in place, it's too late. How long has China been like China is now? A looong, loooong, loooooooong freakin' time. Maybe always. Look into it. Is that the model you want for the world going forward? Or something more like what we have?
        
        If you want what we have, you need to take some responsibility for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Nyeeah, that would be Article I Section 8.
        
        So very convincing when you post a hoity toity preachy post and then get your facts all screwy. But anyhow, just chuckle at me and try to take the post seriously anyhow, because it is important stuff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jameshogg (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 4:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        You have not really attempted to answer the questions I've put forward.
        
        "Or just don't ban them to begin with" is not really an argument, while "we already jail a larger percentage of our population than China" is... for me. So much for a nation that has more guns than people.
        
        Then again, it is only now that I am using your argument in my favour that you are now probably seeing how jail percentages is not a very good indicator of anything. Especially with the war on drugs and the disgracefulness of the U.S. criminal justice system in general.
        
        Here is the sort of indicator I would use.
        
        The militia is no doubt ineffective against the massive standing army at the moment, but that is no doubt because of the army's ability to possess military equipment that is far more powerful than the gun: fighter jets, tanks, nuclear silos, etc. It is too much to expect the founding fathers to foresee these things, and even if they COULD, there is very little they can do about it. How do you equip each layman with a fighter jet? Or a battleship? Or a nuke? And how do you stop the accumulation of power into the hands of a state not competent to have it? It is hard to keep a government small and unequipped without noticing that its inaction may also constitute aiding an enemy. When I see a foreign state standing by idly while genocides take place in Iraq, I treat their inaction as an act of imperialism. Yes. It is possible for a government to NOT use military might and be doing the wrong thing.
        
        But yet, despite the government's accumulation of military might that can crush the layman with a puny gun at any moment, the U.S. still has a far, far greater standard of living and democracy than a lot of other nations. And so does the U.K. I might add, even with its outright gun ban. Sometimes people in democratic countries forget what it is like to live even a day under really nasty regimes in the world. And what they lack is free speech, liberation of minorities, secularism, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, etc. These are really the things that are the indicators of a strong democracy. Guns are just inanimate objects, and will only ever be as good as the politics behind them. And given that we have many democratic nations that can hold each other to account without guns, have a greater standard of living than lets say China, AND can hold each other accountable on an international scale, I would say that my perspective is much more likely to be correct.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Both in history and in the modern era, your assertions are not backed by reality. We won in Iraq and Afghanistan not simply because of superior firepower. Specifically in Afghanistan, the Soviets had superior firepower. They simply refused to work with the people. They had nuclear bombs, tanks, etc. It was their philosophy that lost them the war there, not their lack of hardware.
        
        The only way tanks and planes win you a war like that is if you are willing to commit genocide.
        
        Your argument just falls to pieces in the face of reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 7:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      Hunting is a national past-time in several parts of USA. That is where guns have a very valuable part of society. There are reasons like self-defence if someone attacks you which is often of minimal value unless you carry a piece on you everywhere and all the time. Then there is the psychological "Everybody is armed so massacres will be stopped fast" which is a real plus some places.
      
      When it comes to: Let us arm ourself to fight the government, you should look at Libya and Syria and ask yourself why isn't the thing solving itself?
      
      Heck, in Libya the revolution specifically asked for anti-air support, anti-tank rounds and preventive airstrikes to take down the libyan armys missiles. Now, USA has a very strong equipment in those areas compared to Libya and Syria...
      Realistically arming the populace is likely to end up forcing the government to fight harder and more dirty, costing more lives if it should ever come to that. Realistically you are more likely to see a limited number of "freedom fighters/terrorists" taking to arms and trying to fight the government, but in no way do they stand a snowballs chance in hell.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        It's amazing to me how little people understand of history.
        
        The right to bear arms has origins going back to the Glorious Revolution, when the government in England began disarming Protestants so it could more easily violate their rights.
        
        What is happening in Libya and other places is the result of governments very much like the that being in power for a long, long time. When the power shifts a little, there is no consensus, and so everyone goes crazy.
        
        With a populace that is regularly consulted about how they wish to be governed, this is not a danger, though I note our government is less and less concerned about how people WISH to be governed.
        
        THAT is the issue. We could end up like Libya and other places if we continue to be pressed into subservience by our own government.
        
        And no, it is NOT easy at all to put down an armed populace with tanks and bombs and so forth, because it is a decentralized threat.
        
        Finally, last I checked Khadaffi (However they are spelling his name these days) is dead, so... there you go.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:52pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    Except that there are very specific reasons, well documented ones, as to why they included the second amendment. And none of those reasons are archaic.
    
    Again, we now have a huge standing army and hardly any functional militia. We are in the perfect position to be overtaken by a populist totalitarian. This is not some wild eyed fantasy. This is how that happens. And you're practically begging for it to get worse.
    
    Look, everyone with a heart beating in their chest hates to see these shootings, but there is good research that shows that these shootings happen in no small part because they happen where people are not allowed to carry their own guns. The solution that does not violate the second amendment is painfully clear. Legalize gun possession in all public places.
    
    I have an aunt that takes her gun in her purse pretty much everywhere she goes. She has yet to blow anyone's brains out.
    
    You might try having more faith in your friends and neighbors than you have in the very government you complain about violating your rights the other 99% of the time you are here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:00pm
  
  Re: This blog amazes me
  "Yes, the NRA has poor timing here, but come on, this blog has defended video games for a long time and this is a target shooting game aimed at teaching, not killing."
  
  I guess you missed the part where I said I had no problem w/the games, only the tone-deafness of the timing?
  
  That's what moderate folks like me love about you zealous gun folks: you're so blinded by your agenda that you can't read....you know....at all....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 6:48pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    That goes for both sides of the debate. I guess its a prerequisite to obtaining one's zealot card.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 6:48pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    That goes for both sides of the debate. I guess its a prerequisite to obtaining one's zealot card.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:10pm
  
  Re: This blog amazes me
  The Second Amendment was about promoting slavery
  
  Here's what I hate. People that ignorantly believe that guns promote a free society. They don't. They enforce a police state. Call it fascism, call it a totalitarian regime, call it whatever you want. But don't call it a need to protect your fellow man.
  
  What every gun nut is protecting is cheap labor. As the article indicates, a "free state" looks to enslave people and force them to produce goods below market prices. It's not uncommon to see that the most extreme gun nuts tend to be the same people that have a problem with immigration or minorities in other areas of politics.
  
  So by all means. Protect your 2nd Amendment rights. It shows me how little you value any other part of the Constitution. You can't value the First amendment because you would shoot anyone that disagrees with you. You can't value the 4th Amendment because you've made it known that your ideal state ignores the rights of their citizens if they happen to be the wrong skin tone.
  
  You must not have high regards for any of the Restoration Amendments since they give power to the weakest citizens in our democracy because they are the ones that need a government to protect them.
  
  No, the only thing in the 2nd Amendment is a fetish for a power lost in the workplace, in your government, and a need to act out that need for control over others through force.
  
  I find that the saddest part in someone valuing the Second Amendment over any other.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - gnudist, 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:47pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    Defug? As someone who knows gun owners personally non of them have ever threatened me with them because of a disagreement.
    
    You've officially destroyed your credibility with the non ignorant with just that alone
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      Gun nut != all gun owners
      
      Try reading next time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 6:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Gun nut != all gun owners
        
        I guess this depends on your definition of Gun Nut. I've known quite a few in my lifetime: tackleberries, gun fanatics, guys who dream gun and rod and who salivate when you talk about 1911s or Colt-M4s, and who legally carry firearms on a daily basis as part of their job. I've got into disagreements and arguments with them and have never, ever felt in fear of my life even though I knew they were carrying (they may not have been, since some of them don't normally carry off-duty, and most of them don't publicize they are carrying.) Sure, there are nuts out there that have guns, and they probably should be seeing a psychiatrist, but I find it hard to believe that every gun nut is against the 1st amendment or would kill to win an argument. I don't know any.
        
        Yes, these folks are cops, and thus have training, but there are bad cops and there have been cops who have killed someone during an argument (usually, its been themselves or another cop.) I really don't think folks who legally carry who aren't cops are any more prone to this either. I think you'll find that most people who are legally carrying are more worried about losing their right to legally carry than winning an argument at all costs. Now folks illegally carrying firearms, maybe more prone, but if they are illegally carrying a firearm...what is the law going to mean to them anyway?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 7:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        But that moves away from my point which gnudist chose to ignore. I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment trumps all other amendments. I was very specific in showing the history of our 2nd amendments to promote slavery. The concept of militias to enforce a slave/police state is a very real part of history. The same way that our electoral college gives more power to "cheap labor" states over any other. The cheap labor of the time of Jefferson were slaves. And now, it's "right to work" states. The point is that the ones amassing a gun collection, looking to fight the government and anyone they don't like, are less inclined to defend the rights of others while supporting the 2nd Amendment over all others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        The point is that the ones amassing a gun collection, looking to fight the government and anyone they don't like, are less inclined to defend the rights of others while supporting the 2nd Amendment over all others.
        
        They likely don't care about anyone else's rights, period. If they are willing to stockpile weapons to fight the government, no amount of laws are going to keep them from doing so. David Koresh stockpiled weapons for what he considered to be the coming apocalypse. They are likely buying weapons directly from the black/grey market, importing them illegally, or stealing them, and the government telling folks to turn in their guns will likely have little impact on these folks. Yet I find it hard to believe that the NRA has anything to do with this activity.
        
        The problem with your argument, however, is that labor history has shown that guns have directly helped labor and opposed union-breakers. Bought police officers and private security firms were used by the corporate bosses to end strikes and force unions to accept compromises that benefited the corporations. Things like the Battle of Blair Mountain, the Ludlow Massacre, and the Carnegie Steel Strikes have shown that labor unions have stood up, using the 2nd Amendment, to fight against corporate hired goons and strikebreakers who wished to suppress the first amendment.
        
        During the Battle of Blair Mountain, 1,000,000 rounds of ammunition were exchanged between striking coal miners and thugs hired to break their strike. While the union eventually lost the battle, thanks to the government calling in the Army, the battle eventually strengthened the AFL-CIO and other trade unions, as well as changed the perception in the minds of the public about the use of private security forces such as the Pinkertons and the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency to break strikes. In both the Battle of Blair Mountain and the Ludlow Massacre, the corporate bosses hired private security forces to break the strikes, and in both cases, they used heavily armored trains to attack and massacre men, women, and children in strike camps or hired airplanes to drop bombs on strikers.
        
        Unless you intend to disarm the government and private security forces which can be bought by corporate management, taking guns away from private citizens will likely prove worse for labor than better. And something tells me that the government isn't likely to be disarmed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 3:47am
        
        Proposal
        I propose we take our government back. We have a government of the rich, bythe , and for the rich.
        
        As I discussed elsewhere, we are having the wrong kind of argument in or politics. We have had a power argument for the last thirty years and its why we have a fetish with guns now.
        
        The power argument is all about who had power over you. There is no power in your workplace. You've lost power in the government by losing your voice in local politics, and you've lost power in how our government treats the people.
        
        So I understand most people's need to feel that they get an ounce of control back in their lives. But therein lies the rub. We have a ton of evidence showing how games don't cause violence and that they aren't needed for a free state.
        
        Australia allows that a gun ban works.
        
        In Israel, the government takes away guns from soldiers over weekends so they aren't suicide risks.
        
        Also the government can and has regulated guns in the past. We should have a massive overhaul of our gun laws by restricting who can keep them. We should promote funding to figure out who has guns and who needs them. Then have then safely stored away. And odds are if we ended the drug war as Colorado and Washington are doing, we would end the need for guns and work to rebuild or democratic principles back.
        
        Instead of the power struggle, we should focus on the class struggle and the disparity of power that our plutocracy had created. That only comes in recognizing what the need for guns is a assumption of: The ills of capitalism.
        
        What we currently have is a very unstable system that rewards the richest among us as makers and the laborers as takers. That is very dangerous. We can't truly be a democracy if money goes to the richest of us through patent wars or copyright that does not incentivize the original owner.
        
        But that type of protest doesn't happen with a gun. It happens through nonviolent actions. That is the key issue. Change works through better alternatives being formed, not through force. I think most people stocking up on ammunition for a fight against the government have lost sight of that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:57pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    I read this ridiculous blog the other day. Thom Hartmann... I loved his "Unequal Rights", but on this he is so obviously out of his gord it pains me to have to say I ever agreed with him about anything. Even in that article he cites specifically the fact that the concern was that in other nations militias had been disarmed, and thus rendered useless.
    
    The history of the right to bear arms for this nation goes at least back to the Glorious Revolution, where the government attempted to disarm protestants so it could violate their religious freedoms. That's just historical fact.
    
    I'll click the link, but I am about 99% sure this is the same one I read. It seems to have been released to every major lefty organization in the blogosphere within the last week.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      Yeeeap. That's the one.
      
      Google it. It's out on all the leftist blogs all over the internet.
      
      Way to be a sheeple.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:59pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    The second amendment has nothing to do with slavery. Let's ignore that we're talking about a people who had just defeated the most powerful army in the world at the time with nothing but militia's (and France's money, but it was militias doing the fighting). Let's ignore that both the south and the north had militias. Let's ignore that when the Bill of Rights were written there was a lot of concern about even a too-powerful Federal government taking away State's rights. Let's ignore that Thomas Jefferson thought we'd need a good rebellion every twenty years. Let's ignore that we're talking about a group of people who had no problem explicitly talking about in the Constitution (a document they purposely made very difficult to change) "importation of people", saying blacks weren't worth a whole person for reasons of representation, and that escape from one state into another did not free them, yet the claim here is that they didn't want to talk about slaves directly in the second amendment.
    
    The second amendment was all about making sure the government (whether at a State vs Nation level or people vs government level) would not become oppressive.
    
    Then off you go ranting about what you think second amendment supporters are and then try to duck out of it in another comment saying you were only talking about gun nuts, yet never define what a gun nut is. I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment. I own zero guns and haven't even fired one in over a decade. I get tired of hearing people talk about the second amendment and refer to hunting and personal self defense in the same breath, because the second amendment isn't about those things. But I also love me some first amendment. I'm a huge fan of the entire Bill of Rights.
    
    I'm honestly surprised you would write this. Most of what you say is usually at least thoughtful. But this? This is just garbage. Perhaps you've had a bad day. I don't know. But that's just complete crap.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 4:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      I duck out of nothing. The article supports a view of Patrick Henry who wantedto keep slaves as property. In order to keep that, he forced Madison to rewrite the 2nd Amendment. Slaves could not be emancipated if they were found a way to the north. We had militias that trained people to use guns and find people through the Fugitive Slave Act. And the state kept these people as poor as possible so they couldn't buy their freedom.
      
      Further, bear in mind that this entire notion of a militia is used to keep a police state in power. That's what the article explains.
      
      Now think about how even Jefferson had a dark side. He found a secret formula to slavery that helped him profit. Swirl that all around as you look into the history of our Founding Fathers and their struggle with tyranny. When theywere ones oppressed by the monopoly that was the East India Company, they were up in arms. Yet when they had the power to change it, they didn't create an egalitarian society as evidenced by the Native Americans of the time.
      
      Now think about the 2nd Amendment. Who had the guns and who had the power? The ones in the field picking cotton sure didn't. The ones that created the KKK and created movies like "The Birth of the Nation" sure did. Then, when the power of guns is introduced as a form of protest based on race, suddenly we need gun control again.
      
      I enjoy the Bill of Rights myself. But I have to be honest in its formation. That requires studying our history and learning how our system can be better.
      
      I would propose losing the electoral college since it allows rich barons to control our elections instead of the people.
      
      I propose relating guns for a free society. I propose ending the drug war so people don't have to attain guns and find better jobs.
      
      I propose rewriting the 2nd amendment so that guns can be regulated so that we have fewer than 30,000 deaths to misfired guns at people.
      
      More than anything, I want a more egalitarian society that actually discusses these issues instead of ignoring them when reality shows us why people took certain positions on issues.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Unless of course blacks had had guns.......
        
        Which is more or less the entire point....
        
        See reference to Glorious Revolution and disarming the Protestants......
        
        You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Get back to me when you actually have a position on issues instead of a position on FUD and rhetoric.
        
        You make less sense the more you post you misleading half-truths.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        ROFL!!!!!!
        
        Wow.... so if blacks had had guns in the old South it would have made no difference, and according to you there is no link to the Glorious Revolution and the right to bear arms privately.
        
        You really are not good at this game. I'm thinking the FUD here is you refusing to acknowledge that guns are more often used in defense of the innocent than to kill innocent people in the USA, and that all your fear mongering is just playing into the hands of the very people this site tends to complain about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Wow.... so if blacks had had guns in the old South it would have made no difference, and according to you there is no link to the Glorious Revolution and the right to bear arms privately
        
        My discussion is based on an article that you refuse to read. Seeing as how the conservatives wanted to keep blacks subjugated, they took guns away and it took the North and the moderate Abraham Lincoln to give blacks some modicum of decency in the South.
        
        The right to bear arms didn't help minority relations in the 1860s. The ones with that power continued to suppress minorities. Which had been one of the points you can't seem to grasp.
        
        Nonviolent struggle has had a far greater impact on race relations than killing people with Nat Turner's methods. The only thing that proved was that if Pierre recognized the class struggle in the US instead of fighting each other, they would fight the rich to push for more equality.
        
        But that all seems far advanced to someone who's entire mission seems to be to remain�ignorant of history and spread mistruths.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        What article are you talking about? The Thom Hartmann one? I didn't say I wouldn't read it, I said I read it a couple of days ago.
        
        You're obviously dancing. Had blacks had guns, obviously, they would not have been slaves any longer. It was the disproportionate lack of power to defend themselves that kept them in bondage, and trying to spin it otherwise is obvious tripe. "Nonviolent struggle". The 50's and 60's were hardly non violent. It's just that racism had finally died down to the point where a little violent resistance on the part of blacks did not result in mass lynchings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 2:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        You're obviously dancing. Had blacks had guns, obviously, they would not have been slaves any longer
        
        Congratulations on absolutely ignoring history of white militias to come up with a fantasy scenario. Obviously, the Underground Railroad and non violent struggle are a lost example versus the Nat Turner example I keep pointing out.
        
        The 50's and 60's were hardly non violent. It's just that racism had finally died down to the point where a little violent resistance on the part of blacks did not result in mass lynchings.
        
        Congratulations on ignoring the history of Jim Crow and how it lead to race relations today, along with the struggle of leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr in his struggle to expose the hated with the new fangled concept called television. Congratulations on exposing your ignorance of the Black Panther movement that tried violent struggle and the history of imperialism and impoverishment the US has exemplified since the 1850s. I'm glad to know that you are indeed blind to why guns don't solve anything more than the power complex of simple minded individuals. Those without power are the first cowards to pick up guns. You don't understand how nonviolence promotes stronger reactions than violence ever will.
        
        Had someone gone out and shot Leahy over PIPA, it would have passed without incident. But thanks to people understanding that the bill needed to be defeated, people called and fought it.
        
        You sadly won't ever understand that. All you understand is you like guns and look to defend the 2nd Amendment with little knowledge of American history and the tales of guns to force will on others.
        
        Good luck in your extremism.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 6:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        No one's ignoring the role of passive resistance. It's just that it is meaningless at the point where a culture is willing to kill you anyway in order to keep you enslaved. Armed slaves would be the end of slavery and you know it.
        
        This is exactly what happened during the Glorious revolution.
        
        And no, single assassinations are not the answer. I never said that. You made it up to support your extremism.
        
        Extremist extremist extremist! I win, I called you a naughty name three times to your one! Wheee...
        
        Ridiculous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Armed slaves did nothing of the sort. They did not gain power. When there were people recognized as armed rebels, they were hanged. Blacks and whites recognized their class struggle and fought against plantation owners in the South.
        
        They were crushed by the militias.
        Nat Turner tried to rebel. He was skinned alive and made an example to all other slaves what would occur if they tried to fight for their freedom. So slaves did other things:
        
        created songs to show a path to freedom
        Formed bonds based on the color of their skin
        Went north to tell their plight to others
        
        Created the Underground Railroad, the epitome of nonviolent struggle.
        
        But that must have been lost on you because they just needed a gun for freedom, right?
        
        Please learn your history. A gun won't solve your problems anymore than they convince others of the validity of your argument. The single greatest weapon is the human mind and you're are wasting so much energy in exposing your ignorance of gun rights in America.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 7:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        No one is ignorant of any of that, Jay. Do you honestly believe people have never heard of the Underground Railroad?
        
        Seriously?
        
        People are pointing out to you that if we had all been equally armed, by default, it would be impossible to oppress anyone.
        
        The second amendment is a twofold concept that is attached to Article I Section 8 of the constitution. It is intended to establish the militia as the baseline armed force with only a small standing army (something we have not had for over a century), and to ensure that all Americans, ALL, have a right to keep and bear arms and be a part of that militia.
        
        Obviously, the southern militias didn't include the people being oppressed. That's the problem. Not that people had guns, but that the people who did were nothing but an extension of the government used against an oppressed class that had no right to be a part of said militia.
        
        No one is arguing that gun ownership automatically fixes all the other problems with our government either. It is just a prerequisite to being able to defend ourselves from someone using our own army and police forces against us.
        
        You have yet to address the legally established foundations of this issue, going back to the Glorious Revolution, I almost believe because despite your supposed intellectual curiosity and deeply informed mind, you really have no idea what I'm talking about. But the whole idea of defending one's self even from an agent of the government goes back much farther even than that.
        
        http://www.saf.org/journal/16/theromanlegaltreatmentofselfdefenseandtheprivatepossessionofw eaponsinthecodexjustinianus.pdf
        
        "Thus, let no one shrink from facing (parcat) a soldier, whom it is fitting to challenge with a weapon (telo), just as it is fitting to challenge a thief (A.D. 391). ix"
        
        Only in your little fantasy land do oppressors and thieves suddenly disappear because, oh wow, it's the year 2013 now and we have banned firearms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 20 Jan 2013 @ 4:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I believe in Thomas Jefferson's belief that we first need to eliminate a standing army.
        
        Btw, it's great how your Hamiltonian rhetoric expands to try to full words in my thoughts. Thanks for ignoring discussions just to prince your own circular argument.
        
        Anyway, the idea was, instead of a standing army, for every able-bodied man in the nation to be a member of a local militia, under local control, with a gun in his house. If the nation was invaded, word would come down to the local level and every man in the country would be the army.
        
        Switzerland has such an army. Israel takes guns away so that access to guns is harder over the weekends if you suffer from depression. And only people that have very dangerous jobs get to keep their guns. I know... "Blasphemy", right? Regulation? Not in a free state!
        
        But by all means, loaf up your rhetoric. You sound like you're getting ready for a war with the government. Don't let me stop you.
        
        I just think that taking back the government from the rich and powerful can be dine more effectively through protest instead of through force. But by all means. You have countless examples from history. The SOPA protest worked a helluva lot quicker than shooting Gabby Gifford.
        
        Maybe violence can cause the government to change it's ways.
        
        Good luck with the drones, the tanks, and the very real deaths of American soldiers you supported once. Their blood is on you if you decide to fight the government instead of working to fix the real problems it has.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 5:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Prove to me we don't need guns.
        
        Are you going to ban them and enforce it with a gun to my head, negating all arguments that they aren't needed?
        
        Or are "We the People" going to lay down our arms(Police, military)?
        
        Set the example. The example of the government doing the will of the people and getting rid of their weapons.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 5:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Forgot to add:
        
        Sounds like you are willing to give up some freedom for your perceived security.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 20 Jan 2013 @ 4:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Nope. You look to other societies and how they handle gun violence so that murders don't happen.
        
        Also, you might want to look at the argument about militias and how they were used to enforce a police state.
        
        I want a free nation, not a free state. So I would ban guns from causing so much self destructive damage in a home. We should be having an open conversation about the need for assault rifles or a loss of power.
        
        And by all means. Explain how you plan to overthrow the government when it has tanks, drones, and the ability to lock you up for decades.
        
        If you want prison security, be my guest. But violence to promote methods isn't going to cause the fundamental changes needed for our society. I mean, think about it. We killed SOPA without a shot being fired. We have masses of people that woke up to the fact that for 30 years, we've gotten ribbed by the rich and powerful.
        
        Copyright is a mere symptom of the problem in our capitalist struggle.
        
        We don't have a power struggle. We have a class struggle. By no means do I secure my liberties with force. I seek justice in my actions and look to hold theppowerful accountable to their actions. I don't need a gun. I need a pen and the ability to speak for the masses.
        
        Maybe you think guns are the answer, but it doesn't hold the truth. A united front on the class struggle, be it copyright or civil rights, requires a lot more courage than a gun will ever provide.
        
        Sure, maybe some people enjoy hunting or collecting but I doubt highly that new mass assault rifles are going to be used to hunt deer. Requiring background checks and a database for gun owners doesn't infringe on liberties as much as taking sometime by their GPS can do. I would rather we actually form solutions instead of harken back to a history that dies not exist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 20 Jan 2013 @ 5:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I never said anything about anarchy.
        
        Just set the example. End all your wars.
        
        I can't argue about prison. Land of the free, with more people locked up per capita than anyone. Is that what keeps you free? Using guns and physical force?
        
        Don't preach to me, show me.
        
        And yes, we have a collectors permit. Sorry you don't like the same "art" as me. Maybe we should ban music remixes, I hear they are threatening the economy.
        Actions speak louder than words and are therefore better than your pen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 2:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Guns have killed as many people as p2p has illegally downloaded songs.
        
        Gun=p2papp=Tool
        
        Don't blame the tool! Or at least be consistent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 4:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        What the hell? I didn't say anything about anarchy either.
        
        I can't end all the wars. I can report about them. I can muckrake and become ensure a stronger 4th estate. That's how I fight back.
        
        Also, I have no idea what you're responding to but it seems entirely misaimed at a strawman. I have examples of better ways to regulate guns and you ignored them. The same as Shane did with ways to ensure a free society.
        
        I just mentioned how a loss of power in other areas leads to a belief in more guns = a free society, and my initial past was all about how the 2nd Amendment was altered to promote slavery.
        
        And saying that guns don't kill people? Really?
        
        I'm disappointed that you believe guns, a weapon for death, shouldn't be regulated and allows so many people to die quickly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 6:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I'm disappointed you don't recognize a tool.
        
        No, guns don't kill people. Let me know when a gun has taken itself off of a shelf, loaded itself, aimed and fired.
        
        I think we should ban cars as they kill far more people than guns do. Don't tell me people don't use them. I am living in a building that had a person killed by another pinning him against a wall. I know! It is the fucking walls fault, not the car, not the person behind the wheel, the fucking wall. Had it not been there, that person would still be alive today.
        
        We can blame inanimate objects all day if you like.
        
        Lets ban planes. "Terrorists" use them to kill many people at once.
        
        You aren't thinking when you are blaming the tool. Might as well blame video games.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I refuse to be taken in by a strawman argument about guns used to promote ideological differences in arguments about guns instead of other issues which I've already explained.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 8:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        "The facts tell the tale: in the past 20 years there have been five shootings inside a Canadian elementary or secondary school, resulting in two deaths. (And in neither case did a stranger enter a school and start shooting.) Over the same time period the U.S. has endured more than 70 school shootings with a death toll exceeding 230. If we restrict ourselves to elementary schools alone, which is the focus of Ontario�s new proposal, the difference is even starker. No shootings and no deaths in Canada."
        http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/14/locked-down-and-loaded-policy-doesnt-add-up/
        
        You have explained nothing. You blame the tool just like the **AAs do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Watch this gun kill a guy.
        
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/9813146/Fight-after-Turkish-politici an-threatened-on-stage-with-gun.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        No, I don't blame a tool. Excellent Hamiltonian way to bring about personal attacks instead of discuss ways to limit gun violence. It's obvious you don't want a true discussion that impedes on your beliefs in guns over the rights of others.
        I have nothing further to comment here as this topic seems mired in ad homs similar to maximalism from AJ.
        
        That's what's most disappointing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I already stated how to limit gun violence.
        
        Set the example.
        
        What is next after guns? Drugs? Oh, wait, you are trying that. Hows that ban working for you?
        
        Keep blaming the tool and attacking me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVDRWIrsUVw
        Quick and Easy: Make any spring airsoft gun Semi-Auto!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 21 Jan 2013 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I already stated my proposal. At this point, there isn't much to say. You really aren't interested in anything other than sophistry and I'm not going to stop you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        ajay, ajay, ajay
        
        you are the one wanting to take away from a great many people to fit your desires. you are just scared someone might take away what you want, a game.
        
        difference between you and aj is that aj screams "IT IS THE LAW" you scream "IT SHOULD BE THE LAW." once it is law, you and aj will be working together screaming "IT IS THE LAW."
        
        "Explain how you plan to overthrow the government when it has tanks, drones, and the ability to lock you up for decades."
        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-h eres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml#c3273
        "What the hell? I didn't say anything about anarchy either."
        
        Nope. You are just putting out a strawman and attacking, right?
        
        Hypocrite. Or point to where I even hinted at what you are saying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 23 Jan 2013 @ 4:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Sorry Jay. This was never meant to be personal.
        
        I apologize to you and to Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Get back to me when you actually have a position on issues instead of a position on FUD and rhetoric.
        
        You make less sense the more you post you misleading half-truths.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:02pm
  
  Re: This blog amazes me
  "This blog has a long history of crying from the rooftop about the 1st and 4th amendments and appears to have a very pro-constitutional stance. Except for when it comes to the 2nd amendment. What gives, the constitution either is or is not a great document and maybe the best government foundation this world has seen to date."
  
  The idea of writing a document that will serve the country for all time without any changes is absurd. The fact that there are amendments prove that. The 1st and 4th Amendments still make just as much sense today as they did when they were written, despite the massive changes to society since then. However those same changes have made the 2nd Amendment an anachronism. Not to mention the ridiculousness of using the 2nd Amendment to vociferously defend things that weren't even invented when the Amendment was written, like assault rifles and large capacity magazines.
  
  "Yes, the NRA has poor timing here, but come on, this blog has defended video games for a long time and this is a target shooting game aimed at teaching, not killing."
  
  Teaching my ass. It's one of the most pathetic pieces of software I've seen in ages. It did not teach anything.
  
  "Also, sniping the NRA as being a "lobby" is not intellectually honest (a term that this blog loves to use). The NRA is backed by hundreds of thousands of PEOPLE. It may have some corporate backers as well, but the NRA is not the normal lobby and you know it."
  
  You yourself are being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the truly staggering amounts of money, much of it from members, the NRA spends on directly lobbying government. They're regularly described as one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington. They may not be a "normal" lobby, but they absolutely are in large part a lobby group.
  
  "Please, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to treat everything evenly or you undermine your reputation and show your bias."
  
  Since when does an OPINION BLOG have to treat everything evenly and not show bias?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:24pm
    
    Re: Re: This blog amazes me
    The second ammendment is an anachronism?
    
    Because Hitler took over before there were modern weapons and any such thing as democracy?
    
    Because the single most frequent precursor to totalitarianism is to disarm the population, or that part of it you are about to oppress?
    
    Seriously, where do you even live in your mind?
    
    Democrats shriek the loudest about the possibility of their opposition being Fascist (although that seems to be changing). And yet you have no fear whatsoever that you will disarm the populace and then face a popular Republican fascist who will demolish your rights?
    
    Fascinating.
    
    I guess what's the most amazing as that you have this sense that you are intellectually superior while having absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 11:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      It's hilarious how any criticism of the 2nd Amendment is suddenly claimed to be about "disarming the public", quickly followed by dystopian fantasies of Facist governments. Way to perpetuate the paranoid gun nut stereotype.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Lack of any historical reference to back your falacious argument that there is no need for an armed populace to maintain a democracy duly noted.
        
        Next.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2013 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Lack of any reference at all to back your falacious argument that there is a current need for an armed populace to maintain a democracy duly noted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 1:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Damn, got signed out...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        You're not even kidding are you.
        
        Lol.
        
        Because if YOU say something, it MUST be true, but metric tons of historical evidence that totalitarian dictators end up having to be ousted by force is meaningless.
        
        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/world/africa/libyan-army-clashes-with-militia-near -tripoli-airport.html?_r=0
        
        Your faith in the magic of the north american continent to save us from ever facing a dictator is incredible to observe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 4:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Do you throw everything out that you don't currently need?
        
        Must suck to have to buy a new tool every time you need one.
        
        I may never need an axe again, but I have one beside my door.
        
        Someone does a home invasion here, they do not need to worry about being shot(I do), I obey most laws, but they may leave with a "splitting" head ache.
        
        Hypocrites say no one should have a gun and enforce it with guns.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 6:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
      Hitler subverted the Germans' first experiment with democracy.
      
      He gave guns to everyone but Jews.
      
      What the hell do you know about history other than the Hamiltonian style of ad hom argumentation?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I said, "Because the single most frequent precursor to totalitarianism is to disarm the population, or that part of it you are about to oppress?"
        
        You said, "He gave guns to everyone but Jews."
        
        ...............................?
        
        Exactly.
        
        How would slavery in America have worked out if blacks had had guns?
        
        The thing is you do not even try to read or understand. You have the media talking point embedded in your brain, and it just pops out of you anytime the trigger concept is put forward without conscious thought on your part.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        " How would slavery in America have worked out if blacks had had guns?"
        
        Given the history of those in power using guns to force their will on others, we would have had more rosewood slayings.
        
        Or more Nat Turners...
        
        Or more the Civil War far sooner than in the 1850s and 60s. Which wasn't a part of the argument. You're moving the goalposts to satisfy your own rhetoric.
        
        The rest of what you say is ad hom, used as a ridiculous appeal to emotion instead of any actual statement worth merit.
        
        Hence, why I say you seem adept at the Hamiltonian form of personal attacks on one's character instead of actual arguments.
        
        It's called the "maximilist position" where you are more adept at spring half-truths instead of debates from a reasoned position.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        "Or more the Civil War far sooner than in the 1850s and 60s. Which wasn't a part of the argument. You're moving the goalposts to satisfy your own rhetoric."
        
        You have no idea that you just destroyed your own argument.
        
        Exactly. The Civil War would have happened sooner. This was a minority that was disarmed. If they were not disarmed, they could not have been enslaved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 5:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Your argument makes no sense at all.
        
        They were unarmed because of 300 years of being put on boats and the huge diaspora that occurred.
        
        Second, families were split up to take away cohesion and bonds that would form to rise up against others.
        
        Have you not paid attention to any history while going around with your gotcha questions?
        
        PLEASE try to make sense in your next response. You have yet to argue a coherent thought except your own form of extremism coming from an authoritarian point of view.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 6:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        And had they been armed, by the north, by not being specifically ...
        
        You know what. You're a waste of time. You know you're wrong, which is why you're pretending I don't know how slaves got to America.
        
        This thread needs to die the death.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 2:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        I'm not the one leading a circular argument.
        
        "Had everyone had a gun, the world would be different"
        
        Everyone doesn't. Not everyone needs one. We need a society without them as we began to have in 1994.
        
        We have mentally ill people killing people with legally obtained guns. The NRA sports gun dealers over gun owners. And you go spouting nonsense about the South shouldn't have been armed or blacks needed guns which was never going to happen when the people were labor to be exploited.
        
        So by all means. If you ever understand history from your fantasy, continue this thread. I'll be right there to explain how ignorant your replies are based on your authoritarian point of view. I'll explain the history to you so that others can see why your view is dangerous and uninformed.
        
        Such is the reason that the nonviolent method of discussion is far preferable to forcing people to agree with a gun to their head.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 6:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Which only works so long as both sides are equally able to protect themselves. Otherwise, the side with the gun wins without need for discussion. This has happened, and continues to happen, all around the world where government oversteps its bounds.
        
        You're not teaching history. You're ignoring it.
        
        There was no public resistance to the government in the various Islamic nations before the Arab spring. In Lybia and Syria in particular, part of the army had to peel off to form the resistance. Prior to that, the government simply curtailed rights without recourse.
        
        Had they been mindful to keep themselves armed throughout their histories, there would never have been dictatorship to begin with.
        
        In order for there to BE an open government, someone has to ESTABLISH an open government and MAINTAIN an open government. Voting only works when you are allowed to vote.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 6:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        " blacks needed guns which was never going to happen when the people were labor to be exploited."
        
        Precisely. They were kept from having guns to exploit them, just as the Jews were disarmed in Germany to prepare for the holocaust, just as there is no democracy in most Middle Eastern nations because the government does not allow the general population to have guns. The gun toting people in the streets are government supported.
        
        The labor movement involved working class men protecting themselves with guns. It is obvious that the corporate powers and their allies in government would happily kill people rather than raise wages. By fighting back, the workers bought time and brought attention to the inequalities they were facing. Blacks were enslaved for centuries in North America. The wage slavery that rose during the Industrial Revolution was curtailed, at least to the point of not keeping people in permanent, insurmountable poverty, within the span of a few decades.
        
        All throughout history, people have had to FIGHT to maintain their freedom. It's beyond ignorant to pretend otherwise. Whatever your agenda is, it certainly isn't freedom or any quality of being smarter or better informed than those who disagree with you.
        
        Indeed, most of your argument basically just assumes you as a superior person, which ought to give anyone listening to you pause.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 6:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Which only works so long as both sides are equally able to protect themselves. Otherwise, the side with the gun wins without need for discussion. This has happened, and continues to happen, all around the world where government oversteps its bounds.
        
        Beautiful false equivalency mired in an "us vs them" mentality.
        
        There was no public resistance to the government in the various Islamic nations before the Arab spring. In Lybia and Syria in particular, part of the army had to peel off to form the resistance. Prior to that, the government simply curtailed rights without recourse.
        
        Nope. That ignores the J-curve of expectations. But you're a smart folklore. I'm sure you can figure out that the army being in charge in Egypt and suppressing people for30 years has nothing to do with it. But I guess the Arab spring being a mostly non violent struggle is lost on you yet again.
        
        Had they been mindful to keep themselves armed throughout their histories, there would never have been dictatorship to begin with.
        
        Great revision of history. But you're on a technology site that just saw the effectiveness of nonviolence through the SOPA protests. Your argument is flawed and dangerous.
        
        They were kept from having guns to exploit them, just as the Jews were disarmed in Germany to prepare for the holocaust, just as there is no democracy in most Middle Eastern nations because the government does not allow the general population to have guns. The gun toting people in the streets are government supported.
        
        I don't think you understand how the US has a history of usurping democracies for their own political interests. You're taking a very narrow view of the Middle East that fits your narrative but doesn't fit history. Keep trying though. Here's a hint: look back to the 1950s for why there are no democracies in the Middle East.
        
        All throughout history, people have had to FIGHT to maintain their freedom. It's beyond ignorant to pretend otherwise. Whatever your agenda is, it certainly isn't freedom or any quality of being smarter or better informed than those who disagree with you.
        
        My interest here is to make sure your brand of Tea Party crazy doesn't rub off on others. You aren't interested in a debate which is obvious. You're interested in promoting a gun agenda by trying to make the world fit your agenda. It doesn't. You don't need a gun to change the world which is a key point that readers should take from this. You just need to be Wyoming to challenge the system through better ideas.
        
        You might scoff and laugh. You might decide the government is your enemy. But then you have to come to a realization eventually. The government is made up of people that others elected to carry their agenda. The troops you once supported are now your enemy. And your enemy had the power of drones, incarceration, law, and tanks.
        
        Have fun trying to change the world through the power of a gun when your enemy is better armed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        shane (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 7:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
        Your need to multiply words to hide the obvious is showing.
        
        Here's a historical fact for you. Nothing has changed all that much. What we see in corporate America right now is the right to own being extended to include the right to force others to do your bidding because you own some resource, therefore they have to do what you want to access it.
        
        This is nothing more than a variation on the theme of feudalism.
        
        We are not some advanced species now. We have cooler, more effective, and deadlier toys is the only difference.
        
        The Arab Spring was "mostly peaceful". What a load of crap. People are being hauled off to jail in Egypt as we speak for no good reason. Syria is still at war. Libya definitely was not a peaceful transfer. Most of the Arab world still lies under despotism.
        
        You're just... wildly, openly, mind bogglingly wrong. And yet you manage to maintain this air of superiority. Amazing...
        
        The Arab Spring is only possible because the opinions of the upper classes have shifted enough due to outside pressure, largely western, that they no longer are willing to just execute rebels wholesale without remorse. That pressure from the west is in no small part military. It should come as no surprise that the Arab Spring followed nearly a decade of the US occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. People got a taste of at least some modicum of freedom, and NOW they feel like maybe, just maybe, they can win the battle.
        
        J curve of expectations... pfft. That explains WHY people revolt, not HOW.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:37pm

"Shooting a gun is a violent act. Regardless of what you are shooting."

You obviously know nothing about firearms and target shooting aside what you see on make-believe movies....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon B. (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:38pm

1. A shooting gallery/tange game is not "violent" just because it contains guns
2. I'm pretty sure their position is that violence, especially that on humans, in video games is what is damaging... and there are studies that show the effects of realistic simulated violence (not just video games) affects violent behavior. Now, I personally disagree with this position, but it should be accurately stated

So, love ya, Tim, but the sensationalist headline on this one is a bit over the top and doesn't really help whatever point you're trying to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vegetaman (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:44pm
  
  Re:
  I pretty much agree with how Jon B. put it. I don't see any "hypocrisy" here. Seems like pretty much a non-story to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 6:44pm
  
  Re:
  Are you that dense? The point is that the NRA is being hypocritical. Denouncing guns in video games while making your own at the same time... that's the $#@^@!&'n point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:15pm
  
  Re:
  "...there are studies that show the effects of realistic simulated violence (not just video games) affects violent behavior."
  
  There have been a few studies that claimed that, and those claims quickly fell apart under considered review. There are many more well-respected studies that show only very weak links or no links at all between violent games and actual violence.
  
  Games are an easy target for 'think of the children' types, but in cases where games have been blamed for a person's behavior (e.g. every damn school shooting), there are usually many other factors that have had more significant effects on that person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jon B. (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 7:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh I don't disagree with you at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PCDEC, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:42pm

To me this article seems like it's intention is to attack guns while claiming to not hate guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:16pm
  
  Re:
  Really? To me, it comes across like its intention is to attack the NRA while claiming not to hate guns. You can respect someone's 2nd Amendment rights without having to support the actions of the NRA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:19pm
  
  Re:
  Well that's just because you're dumb.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:49pm
  
  Re:
  The NRA is not a gun and you shouldn't try shooting with it
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:47pm

Cat Avows Innocence in Missing Mouse Probe, Blames Cheese on the Moon
I like guns. I think they're fun, useful, and enjoy using them.

However, the NRA's propaganda to deflect the blame to video games is harming their position. And I'm really tired of hearing stupid rednecks on C-SPAN make that argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:48pm

Gun Control
The fact that you think the ownership of a gun is a medical issue speaks volumes about your "nuanced" stance on gun control issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beech, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re: Gun Control
  I think the fact that doctors are LEGALLY BANNED from mentioning guns is a bit crazy.
  
  Also, unsafe usage of guns can have a MASSIVE negative impact on health.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Gun Control
    They aren't legally banned from mentioning guns..... There was a part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that asked after guns in the home, and it has been demonstrated that some questionable banning of guns happens when people exhibit anything that vaguely resembles a mental health issue, so efforts were made to not let that expand into the PPACA.
    
    I am concerned about the inherent conflict between trying to keep mentally ill people away from guns, and trying to protect people who are not mentally ill and yet labelled so from having their second amendment rights curtailed, but the bottom line is that the second amendment is not about personal safety, hunting, health care, or any of the other issues that constantly fly in eccentric orbits around the discussion. It is about the right of citizens of a free state to take up arms against an oppressive government.
    
    On a site that so regularly points out how oppressive our government is getting, I would expect so see more concern over the necessity of preserving our right to defend ourselves from totalitarianism.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:52pm

Simply out of curiosity, why is only the NRA being called out? Why not every other group that is demanding a study of video games and other media depicting violent acts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re:
  Here you go.
  
  And another.
  
  One more.
  
  This search turns up many more.
  
  Also to be noted: this is far from the last article Techdirt will post on the subject of violent video games and media.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Seegras (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    From the second Link:
    http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20031107/reviews/311070301/1023
    I think he is spot on about what really causes school shootings...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:53pm

Was the fact that it is a target shooting game and not violent get lost on you?

Was the fact tat anyone who claims video games cause violence or shootings is a moron lost on you? It's just funny that the idiots taking this position then suddenly produce several video games.

The problem is that we don't need people with mush for brains flailing about, grasping for any straw which might deflect the idea that guns are dangerous (which they are, or they wouldn't be any good for hunting or attempted self-defense).

This blog has a long history of crying from the rooftop about the 1st and 4th amendments and appears to have a very pro-constitutional stance. Except for when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

Liar, or ignorant. Remember the recent ruling on the wording of the Second? Guess who agreed with the decision on that, when even the the wording clearly indicates that well-regulated militias are the core idea behind the amendment?

Personally, I think people should probably be allowed to own weapons, but arguments based on the second amendment are, quite frankly, bullshit rationalizations.

What gives, the constitution either is or is not a great document and maybe the best government foundation this world has seen to date.

Yes, of course, anything is all either/or, nothing in between and no other ideas outside the binary we have chosen in which to frame a discussion.

Yes, the NRA has poor timing here,

The NRA are overly represented by idiots. Better to get some semi-intelligent people to run and represent the membership than to keep defending stupidity.

Never mind that the blog article had absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment or gun ownership. Never mind what the post actually mentions in anticipation of such irrelevant comments as yours.

So I suggest the NRA get someone with more intelligence, better reading comprehension, and less of an agenda than you to represent the membership. Unless the majority of the membership are, in fact, a bunch of idiots. Then I suppose the representation is just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:56pm
  
  Re:
  Video games, movies, and other cultural works both feed and are fed from the societal culture in which they exist. There is nothing unintelligent about making the point that the guns do not kill, but that in a culture that is saturated with irresponsible and maniacal behavior, people may well be less likely to behave in a socially acceptable manner.
  
  The Aztecs used to like to play a game, and the winner used to get to be a human sacrifice.
  
  Culture sffects behavior.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Seegras (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I second that.
    
    Keep in mind that there are countries which have a higher density of firearms per capita than the USA, but a much lower homicide-rate.
    
    So "violence" is absolutely about culture.
    
    Ever thought about how "violence" (incarceration, death penalty) on the part of the state itself might influence behaviour of its people?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm not real keen to discuss gun control issues on here after having railed against this place being used as a gun control forum. But yeah, I have thought of those things. I have mixed and complex thoughts on both subjects, though I remain pro death penalty and anti mass-incarceration, whatever that tells you about me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 1:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    "The Aztecs used to like to play a game, and the winner used to get to be a human sacrifice."
    
    WTF does a culture where human sacrifices were commonplace have to do with the US? Surely you';re not stupid enough to think that the game was the reason for the human sacrifice, rather than it merely being a method by which people were chosen? Those sacrifices would have happened, game or no game - just as your massacres would have happened without videogames. The game is irrelevant, yet you seem to be fixated on it...
    
    "in a culture that is saturated with irresponsible and maniacal behavior, people may well be less likely to behave in a socially acceptable manner"
    
    That has sod all to do with games. Unless you somehow think that games played in the US are not also played in many other countries by millions of people without any similar consequences. Guess what - they are.
    
    Games are an easy scapegoat, but they're not the problem.
    
    "Culture sffects behavior."
    
    The American media's culture of fear and masturbatory attitude toward guns seems to be part of it, certainly. One thing I can never quite grasp whenever I visit the US is how geared the news media seems to be toward scaring everybody into a constant state of paranoia. It's not hard to see why some people who might have nothing to lose or be otherwise mentally unstable would be swayed by this - you only have to look at the rash of copycat attempts that happen after every school shooting to see that. Fear, lack of education, lack of opportunity and lack of mental health treatment seem to be your major issues, not whether or not someone likes to unwind with a game of Splatterhouse after a day's work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:58pm
  
  Re:
  You must be new here or your have had your orbital inserted too long because this blog has a long history of being anti-2nd amendment while preaching peace, love and happiness over the 1st and 4th. Being selective with your belief in the constitution makes you as bad as the people you complain about being selective with the 1st and 4th.
  
  So please, cut the name calling and go back and read all the other posts here that mention the 2nd amendment so that you will have a real, informed opinion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You must be confused. I've read techdirt for years and don't recall the blog ever being anti-2nd amendment.
    
    Some commenters? Sure.
    
    Articles? Haven't seen it. Proof or get out.
    
    Disclaimer: I love the 2nd amendment. Please don't call me anti-2nd amendment or I will shoot you in the face with a bazooka over the internet*.
    
    *It's a joke. Laugh please.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      (crickets ...)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You must be new here or your have had your orbital inserted too long because this blog has a long history of being anti-2nd amendment
    
    [citation needed]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "while turning our schools into police states, patrolled by armed guards, at least toes the line on the 4th Amendment. The database of mentally ill patients also raises significant privacy issues. No matter what you think of various gun control proposals, it seems rather ridiculous to take a strong Constitutional stand as the basis for your argument... only to make a complete mockery of other amendments"
      
      for starters. first of all schools already have armed guards. they are called resource officers.where i live elemetary schools have part time resource officers and high schools have full time. i live in the county I am not sure how the city works are ours were employed by the sherrifs dept. most city schools have metal detectors and probably private security. I dont take the NRA's arguments to be a mockery of other amendments I take them them as a general mockery. but that my perception I get the feeling your perception is the organization is just made up of a bunch of redneck retards who couldn't hope to match you college level intellect. instead i would consider them an organization made up of many people with many opionions and many agendas but with one unifying goal. You find me some documentation saying they spent just as much directly trying to lobby for video game controls or violent movie censorship that wasn't part of a gun rights argument and I might start to think you have a point. why shoulden't we have a database of mentally ill patients who have been involuntarily committed because they pose a risk to themselves or others. I would image most of them would have committed a crime that warranted a evaluation and they were found to be incompetent to stand trial. court records are public why shouldent this be public. I am not saying I agree with the idea but just as the NRA uses thing for the sake of argument I will use this question for the sake of argument. I don't know much about mental health and would rather not bring it up but today seems the day to shoot of about things we dont have a deep understanding of.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - aerilus, 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and just because i dont have anything better to do right now.
      
      "With guns and violence in the news lately, you would think that everyone involved in the chain of the firearms business would be a teensy-weensy bit more careful, from manufacturers, to retailers, all the way up to those handling the shipping and distribution. As with any other business, you have to expect to deal with some human error, but one would imagine that the firearms industry would have the tightest of controls in place right now."
      
      "As it turns out, such notions are exactly that: imagination. Or, at least that appears to be the case in the Wired story of a man from Washington D.C. who ordered a television on Amazon and was shipped a Sig Sauer 716 Patrol Rifle. For anyone keeping score at home, that's a military grade weapon. Seth Horvitz, the guy who is guilty of attempted TV-buying, is not a military grade citizen."
      
      "which essentially appears to boil down to a lovely bit of insight into the shipping warehouses of UPS, in which the Label Fairy made a mistake and put two shipping labels (only one of which was correct) on the box-'o-death and allowed the box to be shipped anyway
      
      resulting in Horvitz getting his new Rambo Halloween costume accessory. Amazon, predictably,"
      
      "I have to admit that I'm at a total loss to see what the NRA is concerned about here. I thought the NRA was a huge proponent of gun safety. I mean, on the NRA's website it has a section on gun safety where it declares:
      
      Since the NRA's incorporation in 1871, public safety and community service have been among our highest priorities.... At the NRA, we're dedicated to the lawful, effective, responsible and above all safe use of firearms. And today, we do more to ensure Americans are safe around firearms -- whether or not they choose to own them -- than any other public or private group.
      
      So, um, why would they possibly want this ban?"
      
      "I admit, it's difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with MTP's use of the magazines as props. It turns out that the show's producers might make the dean's list for dumb this year. They did indeed get permission to use the props on the show, but they only got permission from the ATF, not local law enforcement, where those magazines are illegal. Stupid, but that kind of thing happens in show business, I suppose."
      
      ""Security made everyone give up their cell phones and checked all bags." And, it appears that security had their priorities straight from the MPAA:
      
      The better part is after we gave up our phones, another security guard waves a metal detecting wand over us and we had to empty our pockets on any hits. My friend has a license to carry a firearm and was carrying - we thought this would be a problem (it's a center city Philadelphia theater), but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun. Apparently a cameraphone is the bigger threat to a movie that will be publicly released 2 hours after we step out of the theater. Of course the DVD screener has been available on usenet for 3+ months."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
shane (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:54pm

Because people are animals too....
"Now, in the interest of being fair here, there's an obvious difference in content between games like Bulletstorm and Practice Range or Varmint Hunter. The NRA isn't putting out games in which human being are shot. But that's a rather weak distinction to draw when you've spoken out so radioactively against violence in gaming."

You are now officially an anti gun nutcase. Your entire article is off topic for this site and obviously slanted, not to mention ... some word meaning unintelligent that would get me censured for its use in polite company.

Thank you for playing.

I despise your inconsiderate introduction of your petty personal politics into this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JWW (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:57pm

Wait what?
So shooting varmits is a precursor to criminality, violence, and sociopathy??

AND you're arguing that violent games are protected under free speech?!!!

Contradiction much? Sure the NRA may be hypocrites here but you don't have to jump on that bandwagon.

Oh and being hypocrites is NOT adequate evidence to have their app pulled from the app store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aerilus, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:15pm

let me first say that I don't think this blog is the place for a post like this buts its not my blog and not my decision. second let me say that this is the biggest piece of crap i have ever read and provides no facts or objective commentary. I would expect something like this from lobbying organizations like the mpaa riaa and the NRA they are special interest groups it is their job to push their agenda as tenaciously as they can. its is the governments job and the peoples job to make sure that the government is doing whats best for the people and not for the special interest groups. I would normally keep my opinion to myself especially considering this is a I.P. blog and has nothing to do with gun law but If someone wants to open up a can of stupididty and ignorance then I guess I will pop my own top. I am going to be open about my own background I regually shoot and own multiple guns including the feared ar-15 which i assembled from parts and learned alot in the process. I would suggest you also go visit the range and try to experience with an open mind what you are preaching against. If you arent a vegetarian i would suggest you go and kill an animal butcher and prepare it because that is what you are doing everytime you eat a hamburger. next I would like to address "2nd amendment should be protected by treading upon the 1st and 4th amendments isn't just hypocritical, it's multiplicatively hypocritical."

the first amendment of the united states constitution is

"Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government"

please explain to me how the NRA is treading upon this they are not suggestion limiting free speech in any way nor freedom of the press/freedom of religion. the article you linked to doesnt provice any facts on this or any direct statements just the drivel I would expect from the mpaa and riaa. the is simply making arguments they are only pushing for the rght to bear arms. there is already a database of conceal carry holders that was recently published in new york. if you submit for a conceal carry license you have to give them complete access to you medical records for review that is why they dont want guns discuses at the doctors because this information is and will be used later you do not have control over your medical records you cannot delete or edit them they are a perminent document. these arguments are not pushing for anything they are reactionary to the lets have a national database of gun owners. lets solely blame guns for all of americas problems arguments. next I would like to address wha this artcle is about I would greatly like it if a screen shot was published to follow the article to give context the allowed html on the commenting system doesn't seem to allow it. you will see a target range infront of a gun. the 4th amendament of the united states constitution is

"Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause" please explain how the nra is treading on this. I have read multiple articles on this site that are against unreasonable searches and seizures. as well as questionable warrants. I dont even know where you are coming from making a statement that the nra is treading on the 4th amendment. Just a few facts that seem to get left out of the whole uninformed gun debate. you do have to get a background check before you buy a gun the system is run by the feds but the laws are done by the states. I have had to get background checks each time I have purchased a weapon and have had to submit paperwork and wait in order to purchase a handgun. the only time you do not need a background check is when you are transfering a long gun between individuals. I am not sure weather agree with this law or not but consider this situation which in many ways paralells many of the stories that appear on this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Olofson). I dont see how you can preach against the Mpaa and riaa trampling people's rights and then not consider the same things that are going on with gun law. I will assume you are simply uninformed in which case I would keep my opinion to myself and not broadcast it to the world
I dont believe violent video games cause mass shootings I also dont think guns cause mass shootings. I really dont think this blog is the place for either the post or this response and I especially loathe the sloppy and uninformed manner in which it was written. I apoligize for the grammer but i am not going to spend more time checking my grammer than the auther did reasearching or making their argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zos (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:18pm

can i just say that bulletstorm was an awesomely over the top game of duke nukem level baddassery and mega violence?

seriously, it made me want to go out and use my energy whip to haul people in the air while shooting them in the dick for bonus points right then and there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:24pm

NRA Shoots Self in Foot!
Film at 11!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:25pm

"and I think the NRA is nuts to object to doctors asking their patients if a gun is in the house."

What business is it of my doctor if I own firearms or not? This is just another push to try to link 'shame' with firearms ownership.

If its "for the children" why not also ask about sharp knives in the house, unsecured flat panel tv's on stands, etc, etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:26pm

Many kids who grow up in shooting families learn to use either BB guns or maybe a small .22 around age 7 or 8, and probably got taken to watch their elders shoot at an even younger age.

Most people prefer to teach their kids somewhere quieter and more personal than a shooting range, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:35pm

The only questionable position I see in the post is the suggestion that any depiction of animal shooting (e.g. hunting simulation) provides an environment where kiddos with a predisposition to inflict intentional cruelty to living things can develop those bad thoughts more rapidly into a full blown mental defect. As the article cited suggests, studies have found some correlation, but it is hardly a guarantee or roadmap.

The comment to me suggests the author's probable position that shooting animals is cruel and there is no responsible depiction of the use of guns that involves shooting a living thing, regardless of age. It also seems like an argument for censorship which seems out of place on this blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:44pm

while their attempt to push the issue to videogames is asinine, it's entirely self consistent for them to push out this game so they have an alternative to point to; the parallel being that guns can be used responsibly or not, and videogames can portray them "responsibly" or not.

No one sane could object to this milquetoast game, which is barely even a "game" to begin with.

Also, as noted, the Apple app store rates content, not the developer - and Apple already revised the rating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:45pm

Ars Technica has a pretty interesting article about why this may not be the PR blunder a lot of people are claiming (hoping) it is.

Basically the jist of it is that the NRA is getting the debate swung back towards violent video games and taking the focus off Guns which is good for the NRA.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/the-nras-new-shooting-app-isnt-the-hypocritical-pr-dis aster-it-seems/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:56pm

This seemed like a headline grabbing turd. The Ars post explains beautifully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 3:57pm

I will not comply
I live on the border in mex cartel country. You want me to be unarmed against them? Come out from your ivory tower and down to the war zone of southern AZ and try to take them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 4:06pm

So basically what happened is that someone completely unscientifically blamed firearms for violence, so just they figured they could just as unscientifically pass it on the video games.

It really makes me worry about this country when the new motto is: I don't like x so you shouldn't be allowed to have/do x.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:00pm

What amazes me in all this, is this idea that games are responsible for violence. Pray tell what was responsible for violence in the old west before video games were invented?

If someone can not distinguish between a video game with a reset and real life, they have problems far beyond that of a video game. Do not think for a minute anyone with a tendency for violence won't find a justifiable reason.

Even before guns and games, tell me what caused sword duels? Sure wasn't guns and games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:17pm

The shooting game from the NRA has targets as targets, not people as targets, big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:21pm
  
  Re:
  Great point. I wish I had made that distinction in the article.
  
  Oh wait, I fucking did....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Yakko Warner (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, you called it a "weak distinction", not a "big difference".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:31pm

Is hypocrisy a sickness?

A video game definitely is the root cause of these shootings ... unless we say it is not.

This new video game where you target David Keene is absolutely horrible they claim. In 2008 they claimed their campaign posters with hit lists and gun sights were absolutely not a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ian (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:36pm

Not hypocrisy at all
It's not hypocritical for them to decry violence in video games and then put out games where firearms are used responsibly, shooting at paper targets. Notably in all of the games shown there are zero human casualties, and zero laws being broken. Much as I am a big proponent of video games and play a lot of violent video games, I can't think of many other games where that is the case, excepting military scenarios, and even there the number of war crimes pretty quickly starts to go through the roof.

As has been noted, the NRA didn't set the age limit for it. Apple did. So, there's that.

Also, the whole "harming animals as a predictive sign" doesn't apply to hunting, it applies to cruelty to animals. Further, that has been thoroughly debunked, though it remains as a popular myth. What the evidence actually shows, if you dig into it a bit more, is that abused children are likely to be cruel to animals, and also face higher risks of criminality. Cruelty to animals (which is not part of hunting--clean kills are emphasized) is a warning sign that a child is being abused.

If you think it's hypocrisy, you don't understand the NRA's position at all, and the article ends up being a straw man. Their position isn't "it is bad to have video games with guns in them", it's "it is bad to have video games wherein you commit criminal acts, including with firearms". They'd be entirely fine with Duck Hunt, not so much with Doom.

Personally, I think the NRA's attacks on violent video games are stupid, but that doesn't mean they're being hypocritical here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:46pm
  
  Re: Not hypocrisy at all
  "But there's one kind of violent video game LaPierre didn't mention at all. Those would be military-themed shooters, such as the best-selling "Call of Duty" and "Medal of Honor" series, as well as the Pentagon-produced "America's Army.""
  
  http://www.livescience.com/25805-nra-military-games.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2013 @ 6:48pm
  
  Re: Not hypocrisy at all
  Apparently you have no clue what the world violence nor hypocrisy mean.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ian (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Not hypocrisy at all
    Please, enlighten me.
    
    It's hard to consider a game where you shoot at paper targets to be "violent", in the same way that I don't find laser tag, archery, javelin throwing, and so forth to be violent. There's no intention to harm anyone.
    
    Hypocrisy: Taking a moral/principled stance via words, and then contradicting it via deeds. Which means that something isn't hypocrisy if the deeds and moral stance aren't in contradiction. That's the case here: The NRA opposes games that show violence--e.g. Mortal Kombat, but not games that don't, e.g. a game that involves target shooting, or Farmville, or whatever.
    
    Calling the NRAs stance hypocritical requires both first defining all firearm-related activities as violent, even when they are not, and second, believing that the NRA itself feels that all firearm-related activities are violent. Even if you think the first is true, the second obviously isn't the NRAs position.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:13pm
  
  Re: Not hypocrisy at all
  Cruelty to animals (which is not part of hunting--clean kills are emphasized) is a warning sign that a child is being abused.
  
  NO!!! It is ONE of the signs that there *MIGHT* be some type of abuse or a metal disorder such as CD or similar.
  
  As for criminal acts within Doom.. WTF are you talking about. Killing aliens or supernatural creatures that are not human and are trying to kill/eat/dismember/discombobulate you is not illegal nor unethical in any universe.
  
  In fact I'd posit that using guns to shoot fantastical and unreal entities is less violent and prone to be problematic to people with pre-existing mental disorders than shooting REAL world things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ian, 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Not hypocrisy at all
    Something being a warning sign doesn't mean that there is a 100% chance.
    
    I agree that shooting a homicidal alien/possessed person/whatever probably wouldn't constitute a criminal act, but I don't think the NRA would care to figure out the plot.
    
    What're you basing your supposition on? Real-world target shooting is hardly anything you'd call 'violent'. A lot of people describe it as boring, in fact. It actually requires a lot of calm and self-control to do well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:06pm

It amuses me greatly watching the discussions about the 2nd Amendment and the American citizens right to bear arms (Can't someone think of the bears), especially when you consider that the USA has the highest per population of deaths by firearms in the world, each state has different interpretations of what is and is not allowed, and how guns and violence on TV is ok though show a boob OMG. But I digress...

My question is seeing as how the NRA's new games have people shooting animals wouldn't a great idea be for someone to report them to PETA.

Then you could have two wackadoodle hypocritical organisations go against each other. And if we are really smart we could have a triumvirate by including in some way Scientology in that Mix. Mexican standoff of awesomeness. I'd pay to watch that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btrussell (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 5:01am

"...nuanced...

...what I do hate, however, is hypocrisy and stupidity...

...habit of occasionally...

...the line on shooting living things is crossed...

...for providing a gaming avenue for that same behavior?..."

See, if I was going to say only some should have guns, I would deny you a gun as you don't understand them.

Without a study to back me up, I would feel very secure in betting that murder/violence by gun, in Canada, has gone up since I was a young lad and the guns hung on the wall(Don't forget to include all the ones that were dropped in a plea bargain.(See, these new laws reduce gun crime!)).

I don't know what people will do if there ever is a real terrorist attack and there is no power for a month or longer.

I refuse to live off of grass and insects.

You do know where meat comes from don't you? BACON! You're going to have to kill a pig. An animal that is as smart/smarter than a dog.

I'm sorry you don't see a difference between survival and destruction. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Hypocrites always have something to say about what others should or shouldn't be doing.

P.S. I don't blame the game, I blame the player and the society that molded them! Afraid of kids getting violent? Set the example, quit killing people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:06am
  
  Awesome post
  Thanks for putting this out there. I especially like the part about setting an example.
  
  We complain here constantly about government overreach, but no one is out demonstrating. No one is pointing out how the system include the military and police, and that these are the people who are often actively doing the bidding of those trying to push the envelope.
  
  Stop allowing our agents in the government to use violence to spread the interests of our banking elite across the globe.
  
  I dunno if that's what you meant.... but that's how it explodes in my brain when mixed with all the things I have concerns over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 7:25pm
    
    Re: Awesome post
    The pen is mightier than the sword. Speech > Violence
    
    Actions speak louder than words. Action > Speech
    
    The Government is the people. They are taking action on behalf of the people. How many wars being waged?
    
    War on drugs? Kick the door in and start shooting. This is no fucking game! This is news! This is what you do when someone disobeys you!
    
    Who is more dangerous, a bunch of idiots with guns or a bunch of idiots who can vote(keeping in mind these idiots who can vote now have a goon squad with guns)?
    
    Should we ban idiots from voting? If there are enough of them, then they still have guns at their disposal(See war on drugs above).
    
    I'm thinking we need a minimum IQ of 125(for starters) in order to vote. This will also help to take money out of the equation!
    
    I wonder how all the idiots will like being told they have no say? You know what, lets take every ones guns first.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Awesome post
      Are you stoned?
      
      Come on, man! Admit it! You're f'n STONED dude!
      
      ROFL
      
      Great post.. I think.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Awesome post
        I have to be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2013 @ 5:27am

I have a second amendment right to a bazooka, how am I supposed to protect myself against tyranny without an M1 Abrams tank? These questions and more are begging to be answered. Was it North or South Dakota that was going to build an aircraft carrier, I forgot but they certainly do need one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 8:01am
  
  Asked and answered
  Tanks, planes, bazookas and the like probably do need to be legal to own, but the cost is prohibitive. The reason guns trump those in terms of a free society is that those are weapons whose usage is largely strategic. You can park a tank close to a warehouse, or use it to blow a warehouse to kingdom come, but it is nigh useless in house to house fighting.
  
  The problem is we have a large standing army and no militia, and people have become accustomed to this and also enamored of mocking the concept because there is little to any military training in the average person's life anymore.
  
  But really, that is one of the problems the NRA and Republicans should address. Without taking the second ammendment seriously, they are going to lose this political fight for us by not insisting on the well regulated militia portion, and they are not interested because their consitutuency (Oh, and the Democrats as well) is actually the same group that want us enslaved.
  
  I find it hilarious that this site is absolutely swarming with people who claim the government is often out of hand, then turn around and cry "paranoid" when people point out that, if the government is out of hand, you need to be prepared to fight its armed agents if it comes to that.
  
  Not a single one of the revolutions that made democracy in the west a reality could have happened if the populace had not somehow found a way to arm itself. Why make that harder than it has to be?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Asked and answered
    "Tanks, planes, bazookas and the like probably do need to be legal to own"
    
    Oh, dear lord, you really just can't stop yourself, can you? I'll give you credit though: if you can say the above w/a straight face, you have certain abilities that I simply don't possess....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Asked and answered
      People own armored vehicles privately. People own planes privately. What exactly is your issue with them mounting a gun or weapon to them?
      
      What is your position on guns carried by security guards?
      
      All of your arguments are basically just you acting all shocked that anyone would disagree with you. I'm less afraid of my neighbors than I am of organizations like huge corporations and out of control governments. That's all it boils down to.
      
      That and I have some sense of history that the vast majority of anti-gun nuts seem to lack.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
keith (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 7:36am

Slants and Observations
Tim really got the discussion started!

On my initial read I was 'upset' and can understand the emotional response a lot of people have to this post.

I read the comments, then re-read the article to verify my initial opinion, and I still read a very clear 'slant' in the article.

I disagreed with the majority of points Tim made, and I do feel like the post was done quickly and his arguments sloppy.

I read the links provided and nowhere did I see the NRA "trampling" on the 1st or 4th amendments. I think it's a very reasonable argument to state that media glorification of these events have a dramatic impact to society, and might play a role in 'copycat' events. I didn't read anything in those links with the NRA calling for government censorship.

Look at the data, and at other articles on this site, gun violence (and violent crime in general) is on a downward trend over the last 40 years. Shootings like these are not "common", however they feel "commonplace" because of the constant media coverage and how our brains process tail risks / black swans / rare events.

Other posters have made very reasonable counterpoints to some of the other points of the article. For example, I believe that there is no good reason for my doctor to ask me if I own a firearm. I don't go to him for advice on how to live, I go to him for diagnosis of medical issues / illness that my body is fighting. I believe there are real and sensible reasons to be cautious about this trend. That doesn't make me a gun-nut, a part of the 'lunatic fringe', or silly. I recognize we probably have different value judgements on privacy and the role of health care (and potentially the government) in our lives.

I personally find nothing wrong with young children becoming familiar with and learning respect for firearms. Hell not 30 years ago my uncle would walk to school with a farm rifle, shoot rabbits on the way, string them up, and pick them up on the way home for dinner. When the principle found out the rifle was coming into the school he simply asked my uncle to leave it out by the fence row. Can you imagine this today? He would be branded a menace, sent to counseling, kicked out of school, and maybe even sent to jail. His life could have been ruined simply because other people were afraid, not because he posed a 'threat'.

This hyper-sensitivity to guns is a relatively new development and somewhat difficult to explain. I think it has to do with how our 'primitive brains' process power differentials - as in, most people have no clue how to use a gun, but can quickly recognize that someone who can has a clear amount of power advantage over them. So because it's unfamiliar and poses a potential threat due to the asymmetrical power distribution, it's then branded 'scary' and 'wrong'. Just a theory.

Also, killing an animal with a gun (for food or sport) is not the same thing as torturing animals (other commenter's made this point very well). For Tim to talk as if hunting == torturing is intellectually lazy, and yes, that is the implication in the article. That or he is a vegan is believes all killing is wrong, in which case we have a philosophical difference of opinion (of which I believe history still proves him wrong). It's interesting to think how far we've come away from understanding how the world works (and where our hamburger comes from). I think every middle schooler should have to go to a farm and kill, clean, and prepare a pig / lamb / goat / chicken whatever at least once - preferably more than once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 7:49am
  
  Re: Slants and Observations
  Very well put in my opinion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: Slants and Observations
  "Look at the data, and at other articles on this site, gun violence (and violent crime in general) is on a downward trend over the last 40 years."
  
  Absolutely true....but mass killings are waaaaay up. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in our nation's history, six have happened in the last six years.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass- shootings-in-the-united-states/
  
  "I don't go to him for advice on how to live, I go to him for diagnosis of medical issues / illness that my body is fighting."
  
  Are you parent? If you were, you would know that half of childhood medicine is about PREVENTATIVE medicine, which is what that legislation was all about: preventing injury in parent's homes.
  
  "I personally find nothing wrong with young children becoming familiar with and learning respect for firearms."
  
  Me neither. Nor did I state there was anything wrong w/it in the article. This was about bad PR and timing by the NRA, not that their games were bad. I really don't understand why people have such a hard time with this.
  
  "Also, killing an animal with a gun (for food or sport) is not the same thing as torturing animals (other commenter's made this point very well). For Tim to talk as if hunting == torturing is intellectually lazy, and yes, that is the implication in the article."
  
  You know what's REALLY lazy? Not doing the intellectual work to understand that I DIDN'T say any of the above, only that I pointed out that NRA opponents COULD make that argument as an example of why the distinction the NRA is making is a weak one. The fact that you think I implied that's true simply means you're not reading hard enough, or that you're a shadow-jumper. The problem is with you, not the article, since what you allege above simply didn't HAPPEN. I both fish and have hunted in the past. I have a problem with neither.
  
  Once again, stop letting the ideology blind you. I'm not anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-meat. I'm a fucking libertarian for Christ's sake and you people are driving me up the fucking wall....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:47am
    
    Re: Re: Slants and Observations
    You're a libertarian and you think I'm an extremist. LOL!
    
    You don't do language well. Here is an example.
    
    "Not doing the intellectual work to understand that I DIDN'T say any of the above, only that I pointed out that NRA opponents COULD make that argument as an example of why the distinction the NRA is making is a weak one. The fact that you think I implied...."
    
    To imply means to suggest. By agreeing with those who would paint these games as similarly violent to games where people are shot, you IMPLY that there is a legitimate point there. That's what that word means....
    
    I don't know why you are so bent on getting yourself upset, but it's not anything anyone here is doing that is upsetting you. You appear to have a need to argue with people that you purportedly agree with.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - keith (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re: Slants and Observations
    I think what we have here, is a failure to communicate.
    
    For one, I'm not upset/angry at you. I find most of your comments insightful and enjoy reading this site regularly.
    
    It seems like you feel like your point is being misconstrued. I'm trying to be honest in giving my view of how the writeup comes across. I think the comments demonstrate that the writing might not be as clear as you think.
    
    The article begins by stating the NRA is being "hypocritical and stupid" .. by opposing Doctors asking their patients about guns. On this topic, we disagree.
    
    I agree there is a significant amount of health care today that targets prevention. My personal opinion is that some of that can be appropriate. Exercise more. Eat better. Brush your teeth. I disagree that owning a gun qualifies as a 'medical' issue. Nor are questions like "Do you wear a seat belt, do you know how to use a ladder properly, or would you change a tire on a busy intersection?" You might disagree with me, which is OK. Again, this might simply be demonstrating a philosophical difference in how we view the appropriate the role of medical care in our lives. I think other commenter's on this site have posted some great reasons why my position shouldn't be considered loony nor paranoid.
    
    Then next few comments has a link and implies that the NRA is protecting the 2nd amendment (possibly) at the expense of the 1st and perhaps the 4th. On this topic, we also disagree. I didn't see calls for censorship anywhere in the article(s) linked.
    
    The 3rd point made in the article (I think?) is that you are asserting the NRA is being hypocritical decrying gun violence in some video games while themselves releasing video games that "glorify guns" and depicts shooting. On this topic, we disagree.
    I think you are also stating that it is a PR blunder because of how their actions might be perceived. I agree we see the world through our own filters, so there will be some who go nuts and feel like what they did was dumb, and others who do not.
    
    I completely agree that they look like jackasses decrying gun violence in video games, period. This site has talked extensively about the data (and lack thereof) trying to link shooting in video games and shooting in real life. So at least on that point, I think we can be in complete agreement!
    
    It's very difficult to critique ones own work, because as the authors, we know exactly what we were trying to say. I did find the language used and presented in this article to read more like a rant. It feels like the bait of switch via "So when did you stop beating your wife" line of questioning. I'm not being mean here - just a matter of fact. I understand you are trying to state a different point in your comments. Instead of being defensive, I'd give you more kudos for recognizing how your points could have been misconstrued/unclear and rephrasing, although you have taken quite a beating from some of these guys! :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Slants and Observations
      "It seems like you feel like your point is being misconstrued. I'm trying to be honest in giving my view of how the writeup comes across. I think the comments demonstrate that the writing might not be as clear as you think."
      
      It is, perhaps deliberately so, but do not ask me to apologize for the inability of others to read properly stated words. I won't do it. I hold my fellow human beings to far too high a standard to even entertain the idea. So, no, the writing was clear as a bell unless one is of the mind to jump at shadows and pretend it said something different.
      
      "The article begins by stating the NRA is being "hypocritical and stupid" .. by opposing Doctors asking their patients about guns. On this topic, we disagree."
      
      That's fine. Nothing wrong with disagreement. Labeling that disagreement as being wholly anti-2nd Amendment is a wonderful example of how discourse in this country has deteriorated to a point of madness. Nuance is tossed out the window such that if you criticize one part of one issues's one player, you're completely on one side of the issue. That is how many of the pro-gun folks in this forum behaved in this post and they make themselves look the fools for doing so. That is entirely their problem, not mine.
      
      "Then next few comments has a link and implies that the NRA is protecting the 2nd amendment (possibly) at the expense of the 1st and perhaps the 4th. On this topic, we also disagree. I didn't see calls for censorship anywhere in the article(s) linked."
      
      First, I did not use the word "censor". Instead, I followed the logical conclusion that if the NRA wishes to deflect what they consider an attack on the 2nd amendment by pointing to things that would impact OTHER amendments, then they mean for that deflection to result in an attack elsewhere. This is logically consistent, though, again, nuanced. That said, I will not apologize for other people's inability to think.
      
      "The 3rd point made in the article (I think?) is that you are asserting the NRA is being hypocritical decrying gun violence in some video games while themselves releasing video games that "glorify guns" and depicts shooting."
      
      You say you've read my comments on this post, and I hate coming off as rude here, but if that is true then this conversation is lost because the above is WRONG. What I've said, for what must be at least the 3rd time now, is that from a PR standpoint what the NRA is doing is STUPID. They hurt their message when the act in a way that can be used by their opponents, simply due to a lack of thought and foresight. That's what this is about: the NRA appears tone deaf.
      
      More importantly, the only real true argument for the 2nd amendment is to combat tyranny. Now, we can disagree on whether or not that has any practical value any more (and, if you care, I think it still does with regard to local law enforcement agencies), but that's what that amendment is there for. What it's NOT there for is for the FUN of owning a gun. So, when the NRA releases gun games for the purpose of fun rather than for their intended purpose, it's silly, but when they do so in the current atmosphere days after stating that violent games are to blame for mass hootings, it's a stupid fucking move. This really shouldn't be that hard.
      
      "I completely agree that they look like jackasses decrying gun violence in video games, period. This site has talked extensively about the data (and lack thereof) trying to link shooting in video games and shooting in real life. So at least on that point, I think we can be in complete agreement!"
      
      Allahu Akbar, comrade.
      
      "It's very difficult to critique ones own work, because as the authors, we know exactly what we were trying to say."
      
      Spoken like someone who has not written several 100k word plus novels. And I don't mean that in snark; it really isn't your fault, but trust me, the right mind can be OVERLY critical of one's own work.
      
      "Instead of being defensive, I'd give you more kudos for recognizing how your points could have been misconstrued/unclear and rephrasing, although you have taken quite a beating from some of these guys! :)"
      
      Again, this is simply not a matter of being defensive; I am right and they are wrong. Simple. Easy. I cannot be faulted for arrogance because it is true. Nor will I apologize if others choose to jump at shadows because of a touchy subject like guns. I will speak in the plain way I know how and will laugh at those that see an agenda where there is none....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Slants and Observations
        Critique and critical are two separate concepts.
        
        Your article implies a certain antipathy to the second amendment, and this comment of yours more or less seals the deal. "Now, we can disagree on whether or not that has any practical value any more (and, if you care, I think it still does with regard to local law enforcement agencies)...."
        
        Any lengthy use of force against law enforcement is going to escalate to the Federal Government. It doesn't take a heck of a lot to get the ATF on something at all.
        
        We're all constantly talking here about Federal over reach, and you are obviously not a supporter of people's right to defend themselves from that part of our government. You mock any and all suggestions that we roll the clock back on our disarmament and think seriously about what Article I Section 8 of the Constitution means. "You think people should be able to own tanks?"
        
        Well, if what Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution means is that we need a well regulated militia, and the Federal government has an obligation to maintain one, then yes. Yes, that is exactly what that means. Obviously, for tanks and such we are talking about large organizations of people, and no doubt the individual states should be involved, but the second amendment is there specifically to support the idea that our armed forces should not be made up of a large standing army, but rather a core of permanent soldiers complimented by the militia when necessary.
        
        Something that is so well within the mainstream of your supposed libertarianism that I find it mind numbing that you don't get it.
        
        Plus, you're even more abrupt than me. There ought to be a law...
        
        But yeah. Yeah, you and your post are anti-second amendment. There is constitutional case law that establishes that the second amendment is a personal right independent of membership in a militia because its foundation is in English common law that goes back to the Glorious Revolution, at least. And it is there so that people can protect themselves against their government when it oversteps.
        
        We don't value a subervient government anymore. For whatever reason, people see danger in anyone feeling they have a right to resist the government, rather than seeing government agents as servants who need to work very hard not to overstep their bounds. We fear our government.
        
        I see it here all the time.
        
        We fear our government.... We fear them because we are no longer accustomed to defending our own interests. To a large degree, I begin to see it as a growing cowardice in our national makeup. Apathetic cowardice that leads us to accept large transgressions like the abridgment of our right to bear arms, and grossly idiotic transgressions like prosecuting a man with felonies for violating a private organizations Terms of Service, and even small issues like having underfunded and inconvenient services for things like paying ones taxes or renewing one's license.
        
        Or just buying milk directly from a far. Did you know it is illegal in most states to do without at least some sort of license?
        
        We have just become inured to government intrusiveness and accustomed to assuming they have the right because they have the power.
        
        Anyway, you're obviously quite impressed with your own writing skills and have taken quite a dislike to me, so we are probably not going to make much progress until you post something I like and maybe I can get the stink off my name of being someone you see largely as a pain in the ass, but this article you wrote strongly implies an antipathy towards the second amendment as written, intended, and further supported by case law, and your personal views begin to bear that out when you finally get around to voicing them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - keith (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 6:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Slants and Observations
        haha ok.
        
        At this point I can't tell if you are simply trolling or not. And I must say, I'm disappointed.
        
        I stand by the four points I enumerated above as taken from the original article. I think many reasonable people reading the post would come away with a similar analysis. I understand that we disagree, and that you have expanded on your points in the comments.
        
        I agree with you it is frustrating to be labeled 'anti 2nd amendment'. Reading your post though I can see how people could quickly jump to that conclusion. You lay the blame on the readers, I'm pointing out that the language used and structure of your article is implying more than you assume.
        
        FYI - I do not think you are anti-2nd amendment, nor have I stated so. Again, I'd say we probably have a difference in opinion over the spirit and proper implementation of it in society.
        
        I do find funny your rant on posters putting words in your mouth, yet you've done the same thing 'jumping at shadows' to make your point on the NRA "treading upon" the 1st and 4th amendment. I disagree with your conclusion that you are being logically consistent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ian (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re: Slants and Observations
    "Absolutely true....but mass killings are waaaaay up. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in our nation's history, six have happened in the last six years."
    
    The evidence you offer in support of your conclusion here doesn't actually support the conclusion. First, you switch from "mass killing" to "shootings" as if they're the same thing. They're not. For instance, of the top five deadliest mass killings in the U.S., none of them have relied on firearms. Fire, bombings, and deliberate air crashes take the top. And I'm not counting 9/11 here, either. But the bigger issue is that counting the number of deadliest shootings neither provides evidence that the total deaths per capita are going up, nor that the total number of incidents are going up.
    
    But, more to the point, mass killings in the U.S. kill a trivial number of people per year. It's on line with lightning strikes, or insect/reptile/arachnid venoms. It's a rare cause of death, not a common one. But, when the entrenched industries want to prevent you from having a 3d printer, they'll point to guns as the reason, and they'll point to mass killings. It's the same as how everyone who wants to limit speech or to sell fancy pornoscanners to airports points to terrorism.
    
    "You know what's REALLY lazy? Not doing the intellectual work to understand that I DIDN'T say any of the above, only that I pointed out that NRA opponents COULD make that argument as an example of why the distinction the NRA is making is a weak one. The fact that you think I implied that's true simply means you're not reading hard enough, or that you're a shadow-jumper. The problem is with you, not the article, since what you allege above simply didn't HAPPEN. I both fish and have hunted in the past. I have a problem with neither."
    
    Might I suggest another possibility, which is that you were unclear in the article? You said "The line on shooting living things is crossed and it would be quite easy to point to harming animals as a predictive sign of criminality, violence and sociopathy." This implies that you believe that hunting falls into that category. If that wasn't what you mean, fair enough, but I don't think it's right to call people intellectually lazy for what seems to be a miscommunication. You weren't clear, you were misunderstood. It happens. I think that I'm getting your point from reading your further comments, but it's not the point I got from just reading the article on its own.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Slants and Observations
    Presumably as a libertarian you don't absolutely abhor the Cato Institute. I know a lot of people who will go ape on me just for using them as a source, but...
    
    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
    
    What this is is a metric f-ton of examples of how many people are protected by guns.
    
    It far outstrips the number of innocent people shot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
trish, 18 Jan 2013 @ 7:48am

second amendment
Was written back in the frontier days when u might need to shoot an injun or he would pillage your home. Nowadays, there is no reason to have a gun in your home, and it is just very weird to argue otherwise. Unless you live somewhere is Afghanistan probly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re: second amendment
  Same point.
  
  http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
  
  Far more people are protected by guns than are ever hurt by them in the USA.
  
  Plus all the tons of stuff already written about the makeup of our armed forces needing to be brought back in line so that our government is not a threat to our own freedom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
shane (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 3:03pm

This Thread
Would have been a lot more effective had it focused on the idea that video games do not cause violent crime rather than taking specific aim at the NRA.

There's a post on the front page now where Biden jumps on the anti-video game bandwagon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 19 Jan 2013 @ 11:15am

Tell me another story
When I was four I was given my first cap gun (A toy that used
Impregnated paper to make a banging sound). Later my Xmas parcel included a pump action gun that shot out ping pong balls. By 12 I had a double holster, two cap guns, a bow and arrow set and to date I have not become a raving murderous lunatic.
It is not the tools that make the person, it is what they learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]