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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"Then Wikipedia came in -- the final elephant stampeded (I've always pointed out that they are a walled garden, not part of the open Internet because no link every takes you outside of their servers, and they do not have social media devices like "like" or "tweet" on their site)."
At the bottom of every Wikipedia page are the citations, many of which are linked to outside sources.
Here's one it took me all of 15 seconds to snag at random.
This is exactly what I believe. The moral imperative is actually exactly the opposite of those accusing Swartz of knowing he did something wrong. He knew he was doing something right. He also knew some people would be out to get him for it.
"Oh, please. Do you take us all for children?! Let me explain to you "how the Internet works". The "Internet works" the same way everything else works: a) influence b) money."
Cool link, but it hardly matters. Even if you're right, and I am not sure your take is entirely accurate, you still make a crappy case for copyright by demonizing the interests of the people Kapor may have been able to agitate with his deep pockets.
I notice the term "echo chamber" gets used a lot in the link, and by people who criticize Tech Dirt. What exactly is the fascination with this term, "echo chamber"? As if nowhere other than in the tech industry do people sometimes get caught up in their own press releases?
Sorry for the little personal run in. I see where you were coming from now.
I tend, like you, to be somewhat nonplussed about the death of big budget art; but sadly, artists are not quite as apathetic.
There is also this thing that artists, like pretty much all other professionals, come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. And their work is important. In the past, massive structures were the art that interested the wealthy and powerful the most, but these days blockbuster entertainment, preferably with a subtle, pro-powerful message, is all the rage, and make no mistake about it, part of the reason for these huge budgets is to get the best and brightest minds in entertainment supporting THEIR causes.
Because our monetary system currently allows banks, and only banks (not even the government), to introduce new money into the economy, and because that money is introduced in the form of loans, it is exceedingly important that any new business model for artists somehow protect the artists themselves while simultaneously prying them free of distributors.
The bank angle is key. If it were merely a matter of there needing to be rich patrons, well... the best artists would most likely be hired by the wealthiest patrons. But the issue here is that funding is best obtained from banks, and banks do not fund for reasons of message. They fund for interest. And if you cannot provide a reasonable argument that you can make money on the money you borrow, they not only don't want to loan it to you, but really they just can't. Too many bad loans risk a collapse of the system, and we've seen time and time again what happens when that starts up.
So to summarize, IP allows bank financing by protecting the people doing an artistic project so that they can have a reasonable expectation of profit on certain types of big budget art. That, in turn, allows them to attract the best talent.
Artists are thus drawn into the orbit of such a business model.
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.
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...
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.
The issue is that mental "illness" and behaviors authorities do not like can be conflated. It's a pretty well documented mental health issue, including privacy concerns for the mentally ill vs. safety concerns for the general public.
It has nothing to do with some generational gap, or your generations innate superiority to any generation before. To hear anyone even suggesting that is somewhat spooky to me, as it suggests a certain lack of perspective.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
This Thread
There's a post on the front page now where Biden jumps on the anti-video game bandwagon.
On the post: Another Legislator Hops On Board The 'Violent Video Game' Bandwagon; Introduces Redundant Labeling Bill
Aaaand viola.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
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.
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Blah blah blah
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.
On the post: For Internet Freedom Day, Watch Aaron Swartz Explain How SOPA Was Stopped
On Wikipedia
"Then Wikipedia came in -- the final elephant stampeded (I've always pointed out that they are a walled garden, not part of the open Internet because no link every takes you outside of their servers, and they do not have social media devices like "like" or "tweet" on their site)."
At the bottom of every Wikipedia page are the citations, many of which are linked to outside sources.
Here's one it took me all of 15 seconds to snag at random.
http://census.al/Resources/Data/Census2011/Instat_print%20.pdf
On the post: Scientist Explains Why Putting Research Behind A Paywall Is Immoral
Moral Imperative
On the post: For Internet Freedom Day, Watch Aaron Swartz Explain How SOPA Was Stopped
ROFL
"Oh, please. Do you take us all for children?! Let me explain to you "how the Internet works". The "Internet works" the same way everything else works: a) influence b) money."
Cool link, but it hardly matters. Even if you're right, and I am not sure your take is entirely accurate, you still make a crappy case for copyright by demonizing the interests of the people Kapor may have been able to agitate with his deep pockets.
I notice the term "echo chamber" gets used a lot in the link, and by people who criticize Tech Dirt. What exactly is the fascination with this term, "echo chamber"? As if nowhere other than in the tech industry do people sometimes get caught up in their own press releases?
Weird.
On the post: For Internet Freedom Day, Watch Aaron Swartz Explain How SOPA Was Stopped
Re: Re: Re: Re: Financial Reform!
I tend, like you, to be somewhat nonplussed about the death of big budget art; but sadly, artists are not quite as apathetic.
There is also this thing that artists, like pretty much all other professionals, come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. And their work is important. In the past, massive structures were the art that interested the wealthy and powerful the most, but these days blockbuster entertainment, preferably with a subtle, pro-powerful message, is all the rage, and make no mistake about it, part of the reason for these huge budgets is to get the best and brightest minds in entertainment supporting THEIR causes.
Because our monetary system currently allows banks, and only banks (not even the government), to introduce new money into the economy, and because that money is introduced in the form of loans, it is exceedingly important that any new business model for artists somehow protect the artists themselves while simultaneously prying them free of distributors.
The bank angle is key. If it were merely a matter of there needing to be rich patrons, well... the best artists would most likely be hired by the wealthiest patrons. But the issue here is that funding is best obtained from banks, and banks do not fund for reasons of message. They fund for interest. And if you cannot provide a reasonable argument that you can make money on the money you borrow, they not only don't want to loan it to you, but really they just can't. Too many bad loans risk a collapse of the system, and we've seen time and time again what happens when that starts up.
So to summarize, IP allows bank financing by protecting the people doing an artistic project so that they can have a reasonable expectation of profit on certain types of big budget art. That, in turn, allows them to attract the best talent.
Artists are thus drawn into the orbit of such a business model.
That's my perception.
On the post: For Internet Freedom Day, Watch Aaron Swartz Explain How SOPA Was Stopped
Pfft
Google helped Aaron? And you and yours in the entertainment industry want to destroy my rights on the internet?
Well, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, my friend.
Thanks for coming out to gin up fear and loathing for your cause.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: second amendment
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Slants and Observations
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slants and Observations
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
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.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Re: @ silverscarcat
The issue is that mental "illness" and behaviors authorities do not like can be conflated. It's a pretty well documented mental health issue, including privacy concerns for the mentally ill vs. safety concerns for the general public.
It has nothing to do with some generational gap, or your generations innate superiority to any generation before. To hear anyone even suggesting that is somewhat spooky to me, as it suggests a certain lack of perspective.
Next >>