Jim & Yahtzee's Rhymedown Spectacular: Games, Games, Everywhere.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

WaitWHAT:

DVS BSTrD:

And if this video proves anything, it's that Catcher in the Rye will always suck ass.

Yeah. I remember that. God, it was terrible. The main character spent the entire book whining something to the tune of "WHY WON'T EVERYONE ACCOMMODATE MY TERRIBLE MISTAKES AND GIVE ME EVERYTHING I WANT?! WHHHHHYYYY?!?!"

In regards to the whole "guns vs. games" thing, I think it's worth stating at this point that while games have been repeatedly proved to have no link to increased violence, the opposite is true of guns.

Off Topic: Allow me to explain why your analysis of The Catcher In The Rye is wrong; Holden never wishes to be accommodated in fact he is open about with his feelings that he is kind of shitty person. Holden journey revolves around his internal struggle as he reflects on world around him. He realizes the reason he is the way he is his partly his fault but he has also been rejected by his society. Holden is a pariah as he is antithetical to the average person during the post WII years in America. Where people where expected to be conformist and submit to authority Holden questioned.

Surely people who go on the escapist where probably ostracized in school.

(Note that I went to Wikipedia for the whole poem, which is relevant to the title but not to Yahtzee's and Jim's poems.)
Month after month, month after month,
Indust-ry stagnation
As idle as a heavy gun
Under a dirty ocean.

Games, Games Everywhere
Yet the industry still sank,
Games, Games Everywhere
Any new ideas? Blank.

level27smartass:

Off Topic: Allow me to explain why your analysis of The Catcher In The Rye is wrong; Holden never wishes to be accommodated in fact he is open about with his feelings that he is kind of shitty person. Holden journey revolves around his internal struggle as he reflects on world around him. He realizes the reason he is the way he is his partly his fault but he has also been rejected by his society. Holden is a pariah as he is antithetical to the average person during the post WII years in America. Where people where expected to be conformist and submit to authority Holden questioned.

Surely people who go on the escapist where probably ostracized in school.

....I can't help but feel that your username has never been more appropriate.

RJ 17:
Yeah yeah, I'll bight. Guns are no more to blame than games, movies, books, pictures, and spoken word. Crazy people will do crazy things whether or not they have a gun to do them with.

Political differences aside, I still enjoyed both poems, though the meter in Jim's seemed a bit off. :P

Except that guns is a tool that empowers, there's a difference between mad with power and mad without power. A mad man with the power of a gun or to launch a nuke is much more dangerous than one without.

Both guns and games are two different perspective taking on the same situation. One claims that we should take away things that make people mad and one claims that we should take away power for mad people to minimize damage. However, taking away power from the mad is a much more sound solution while weather games make people mad is still indebate.

First time I've watched this series and I must say old chap it is rather splendid.

I would really like to get into the nine different kinds of irony and symbolism that Jim seems to be working with, but I can't get over how much it looks like he's getting a BJ during the first few frames of that video.

Well Jim, I didn't expect you to tackle unoriginality in the indie scene. Good work.

Oh, the Yahtzee's was good too.

mike1921:

Cars have an important transportation function, knives have an important culinary function. You can't compare a weapon to a practical tool. Guns make it easier to kill larger amounts of people and serve such a small function in civilized life. It's reasonable to require a background check for them, and to limit clip size so that you can only kill so many people with one if you're a murderer. If you're going to say this is about people wanting to ban all guns then point me to one American politican, they have to be at the level of a governor,congressman, president/VP or cabinet member, who supports such a thing. I have never heard rhetoric of banning all guns from any one important besides people using it as a strawman.

If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.
As for the car comment, why not lower the speed limit to 15mph? That way, less people would die in traffic related accidents. Even more interesting, as arriving on time is not a right given by the Constitution but merely a luxury, this should be relatively easy to do.

Jaden Kazega:

Pretty much this.

I think there is one important question which should be asked that no one seems to be asking: why are all of the non-lethal ammunition types banned from public use, or illegal for private citizens to use? I haven't done any in-depth research on this, so don't take what I say as 100% fact, but as far as I can tell all forms of non-lethal measures to stop and/or incapacitate an attacker are illegal for private citizens to own (IE: rubber bullets, disrupter rounds, sandbag rounds, pepper spray bullets, taser rounds -- and yes, those last two types DO exist). Why is this? I see real bullets being needed for hunting purposes for specific kinds of rifles, but why not avail all of the non-lethal measures to the public? Then there would no longer be the need for citizens to carry live ammunition to defend themselves, but this is just in my opinion.

On that same note, why (at least in California) are there only five types of taser a citizen is allowed to own? The rest are for peace officers only. Again, why limit stopping power of a non-lethal level to only law enforcement rather than the general public? I know I would have no qualms about owning a gun if I had access to non-lethal ammunition types, or A RELIABLE TASER....

I really don't want to turn this into a debate thread, honestly, I am just genuinely curious about this. lol

The bold part is your problem, tasers are not what you would call reliable. Watch any video where an officer is trying to subdue a suspect using a taser. One hand aiming the taser, the other on his sidearm. In many situations where he is not, his life is at risk. I've seen officers get shot because they thought the taser was going to work. Instead, the suspect just shakes it off or is at least able to shoot. Pepper spray is no different, if you eat enough spicy food (not crazy amounts, just on a regular basis) you're practically immune to it.
If you want a weapon that is legal and sure to defend you, get a knife. In almost any CQ situation (4-5 meters) a person with a knife can inflict life threatening injury to even a person armed with a gun

Jim is totally wrong. It's different when I buy the exact same game with different skins, because indie is exempt from logic!

Thunderous Cacophony:
Taking on gun fans and the indie scene in the same video... This comment section will be interesting.

And possibly confusing.

Adam Jensen:
Yahtzee tackled my favorite issues in politics and video game industry. It's absolutely insane how long people can go on denying the obvious truth about guns.

That they are sentient artifacts from the pits of Hell manufactured by dark incantations taught to us by creatures from the 13th dimension?

RJ 17:
Yeah yeah, I'll bight. Guns are no more to blame than games, movies, books, pictures, and spoken word. Crazy people will do crazy things whether or not they have a gun to do them with.

Political differences aside, I still enjoyed both poems, though the meter in Jim's seemed a bit off. :P

I agree. Shootings are just as likely to happen with video games. Ideas are just as lethal as bullets, and if we just showed pictures to people, we'd have the same end result. There is a direct correlation between games/books and violence, and the nirvana fallacy is a strong argument in favour of firearms.

Well, it's no more glib than the indication that people believe guns are the cause of violence.

Legion:

Very true, although I think it's a very small minority who think that guns actually cause violence. It's more about how easy they make it.

Though neither are the reason for Yahtzee's segment today. Not that I disagree, it just seems weird to be even having this discussion when the core of the mockery here is the notion that certain bodies have effectively said "these shootings are out of hand and have to stop....LET'S BAN VIDEO GAMES!"

And, of course, the slippery slope it follows for comedic effect.

Deshin:
[I guess everybody just missed the joke?

Guns are srs business and the simple implication that guns might be a problem is such to trigger a rote response in most 'Murricans.

It probably doesn't help that it points out the stupidity of the stance taken by one of the biggest gun lobbies in America. That is to say, "these shootings are out of hand and have to stop....LET'S BAN VIDEO GAMES!"

That's bound to snag some emotions.

Somehow, this thread has made me think about school.

And how language classes could be improved by choosing interesting literature and such rather than always falling back on the classics for your respective country. Not saying the classics are bad, but they're maybe not the best thing to make kids read, and be enthusiastic about it.
Or at least diversify it a bit. As a lot of the classics in my own language, and English, tend to be rather depressive stories(for example, "A Dollhouse" by H. Ibsen.)

Annyway...

Just want to throw in one comment about the gun debate(which was mentioned a few times before):

Guns themselves don't cause violence, no.
But they make the consequences of it much more severe.

RJ 17:

Jim's game should have a Green Day soundtrack
I wanna be a minority!

Certainly would fit with the pretentiousness of indie games. Green Day moves to America so they can make it big as a rock band and then spend all their time bitching about America. :P

Moves to America? What? They're from California.

Desert Punk:

WaitWHAT:

DVS BSTrD:

And if this video proves anything, it's that Catcher in the Rye will always suck ass.

Yeah. I remember that. God, it was terrible. The main character spent the entire book whining something to the tune of "WHY WON'T EVERYONE ACCOMMODATE MY TERRIBLE MISTAKES AND GIVE ME EVERYTHING I WANT?! WHHHHHYYYY?!?!"

I am so very glad that I took Film as Literature instead of the garbage that was American Lit in High School.

I got to skip that shitty book completely!

I think it's a great book that for some reason almost everyone reads wrong. When I read it I thought it was a clear example of an unreliable narrator - a protagonist who's surrounded by well-meaning people who want to do right by him and who keeps rejecting them all. But I appear to be in the minority and everyone else seems to think he's an insightful teenager who really is seeing through everyone else's phoniness.

furai47:

If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.

So, is it your opinion that the 2nd Amendment allows anyone to buy a nuclear missile?

I'm honestly curious just how broad you (and other pro-gun right advoctes) are willing to stretch this bit of logic.

RJ 17:

DVS BSTrD:
And if this video proves anything, it's that Catcher in the Rye will always suck ass.

Seconded.

Thirded. What a whiney little douche for a protagonist. My English teacher for senior year said that book inspired the assassination of John Lennon, but I think that guy would have done it regardless. You can't blame anything but the crazy people for their actions.

Jim's game should have a Green Day soundtrack
I wanna be a minority!

Certainly would fit with the pretentiousness of indie games. Green Day moves to America so they can make it big as a rock band and then spend all their time bitching about America. :P

Wait, I thought all the members of Green Day were from Berkeley, CA? I live near there, and there's a huge fan following throughout Alameda County.
OT: I liked Jim's poem because it employed more subtlety and FINALLY used irony correctly. I can see why most "Indie" devs make their games look like the stuff from their youth, because it's more familiar and way easier to program yourself or with a small team than what AAA games require. As for Yahtzee's poem, it hits home, because there are people blaming guns themselves for violence and those who blame popular media for inspiring it, but they're both wrong. it's the crazy idiots who are to blame, and that's what needs changing.

mmm tangfastic.

I think Yahtzee's was wasted on some though, while it is about guns it's not necessarily only about guns, parallels can be drawn to DRM and other rubbish in gaming and a lot of other subject areas.

With Jim's it reminds me of a part in Chasing Amy where a character says that while many people want to think they're being creative, unique and new in the bedroom, everything they come up with has been done by many many other people already usually hundreds of years before too. Well words to that effect.

...And if I could get a car at a car show without having to have a license, take both a written and a competency test, renew my car's registration every year, and periodically prove that I was still competent to drive a car, there would probably be a lot more auto deaths.

Tangentially, I have been in places in large cities where it was literally impossible to legally travel more than about four blocks without access to a motor vehicle. I have never been in a city where basic functional life was impossible without a gun.

I know there are a great many responsible gun owners who care intensely about gun safety, don't use or store their weapons irresponsibly, and would be horrified at the idea of pointing one at a human being.

Unfortunately, in my country, they have the same rights as the people who fire their guns into the air at every holiday celebration, leave loaded weapons where children can get them, and/or are itching for an opportunity to show how macho and self-reliant they are to imaginary violent criminals.

Guns don't cause violence, but it takes a powerful level of delusion to pretend they don't make violence a hell of a lot easier. The utter inability of some to contemplate anything that "infringes on their rights", no matter the cost, is kind of sickening.

I think what Yahtzee's poem was saying was that violence is a problem, but banning forms of art won't solve it.

I am indie gun developer and find this offensive.

Vhite:
I am indie gun developer and find this offensive.

Make a gun that shoots shurikens and lightning please!

Callate:
...And if I could get a car at a car show without having to have a license, take both a written and a competency test, renew my car's registration every year, and periodically prove that I was still competent to drive a car, there would probably be a lot more auto deaths.

Based on the rest of your comment I'm not sure what country you live in, but in the US you can do all those things without a driver's license, and you don't need to register your car to own it. In the US you only need a license to drive on public roads, and you only need to register your car if you want to take it on public roads.

If you want to buy a car and only drive it on private property, and transport the car from place to place on a trailer, you can do so without the government's permission. With enough resources, you can let your 14-year-old kid drive an unregistered home-built car at 200mph on your land.

Mahoshonen:

furai47:

If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.

So, is it your opinion that the 2nd Amendment allows anyone to buy a nuclear missile?

I'm honestly curious just how broad you (and other pro-gun right advoctes) are willing to stretch this bit of logic.

No, that's hyperbole that nobody actually advocates.

In the most common reading of the Second Amendment, it allows private citizens to acquire personal weapons that are useful for defense. Rifles, including mid-sized semi-auto rifles like the AR-15, are well-suited for this purpose.

WaitWHAT:

DVS BSTrD:

And if this video proves anything, it's that Catcher in the Rye will always suck ass.

Yeah. I remember that. God, it was terrible. The main character spent the entire book whining something to the tune of "WHY WON'T EVERYONE ACCOMMODATE MY TERRIBLE MISTAKES AND GIVE ME EVERYTHING I WANT?! WHHHHHYYYY?!?!"

In regards to the whole "guns vs. games" thing, I think it's worth stating at this point that while games have been repeatedly proved to have no link to increased violence, the opposite is true of guns.

I knew the 'proof' would be nothing more than a correlation.

ExtraDebit:

RJ 17:
Yeah yeah, I'll bight. Guns are no more to blame than games, movies, books, pictures, and spoken word. Crazy people will do crazy things whether or not they have a gun to do them with.

Political differences aside, I still enjoyed both poems, though the meter in Jim's seemed a bit off. :P

Except that guns is a tool that empowers, there's a difference between mad with power and mad without power. A mad man with the power of a gun or to launch a nuke is much more dangerous than one without.

Both guns and games are two different perspective taking on the same situation. One claims that we should take away things that make people mad and one claims that we should take away power for mad people to minimize damage. However, taking away power from the mad is a much more sound solution while weather games make people mad is still indebate.

Just because someone has a gun does not automatically mean they're going to shoot a human with it. In fact, the vast majority of people who own guns have absolutely no intention of using it on a human. You were indeed right in saying that a gun is just a tool, what that tool does is dependent entirely on the person that's using it. A hunter who owns a gun has no intention of using it on a human being, they intend to use it to hunt animals. A home owner who has a gun for home/personal defense has no intention of using it on a human being, to have such an intent would mean that they intend for their home to be invaded thereby justifying their use of a gun on a person.

As I pointed out to someone else, we live in an age where people can look up instructions on how to build a bomb on the internet at their local library. Crazy people will always do crazy things, no matter what you take away from them. So let's follow the poem's line of logic and start with banning guns. With no more guns, people start building bombs. With all things that could be used to build bombs banned (which would be quite a feat), some madman starts mowing people down with his car. With all cars banned, some psycho goes on a stabbing spree at a college (already happened). With all knives banned, some nut job goes around clocking people in the back of the head with a hammer. With all hammers banned...etc.

The bottom line is, as I said, there are crazy people out there. The gun didn't make them crazy - just as a game didn't make them crazy - they were crazy before they even had the gun in their hand. Crazy people are going to find ways to do crazy things regardless of what you take away from them.

Mahoshonen:

furai47:

If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.

So, is it your opinion that the 2nd Amendment allows anyone to buy a nuclear missile?

I'm honestly curious just how broad you (and other pro-gun right advoctes) are willing to stretch this bit of logic.

So, is your opinion that medical research is completely fine to be done on infants rather than lab rats? Rifles and nuclear missiles are about in the same relationship as those two and frankly, if you can't distinguish a bomb that upon detonation kills thousands (if detonated above a residential area) and a gun that, unless you have people standing in line or are lucky with ricochet, kills one person at a time you are not suited to have a conversation about gun rights.

I am completely fine with the US government going through the required process (Included with every order of the US Constitution, get yours today!) of adding an amendment to regulate guns and arms, but until such time as they do exactly that, limiting magazine sizes, bullets, armour, pistol grips, stocks and any and all plastic bits that make a gun look scary is illegal. Full stop.

There are already restrictions on owning tanks, B17 bombers, artillery stations and the like, so don't pretend "the right to bear arms" means you can carry an intergalactic planet vaporiser around without the necessary paperwork.

Father Time:

I knew the EDIT: proof would be nothing more than a correlation.

And the fact that no mass shootings in the last 30 years have been stopped by armed bystanders. And the fact that stand your ground laws lead to a 7-10% increase in homicides. And the fact that for every use of a gun for home defence, there are 7 used in an assault/homicide, 4 involved in a home accident and 11 used in a suicide/suicide attempt. And the fact that assault victims who are armed are 4.5 more likely to be shot than unarmed assault victims. I could go on, but there's a whole list already put. You might want to read it sometime.

WaitWHAT:

Father Time:

I knew the EDIT: proof would be nothing more than a correlation.

And the fact that no mass shootings in the last 30 years have been stopped by armed bystanders.

Sorry but she actually mentions that one was stopped by an armed civilian. It was a marine but he was off duty and had to abide by the same concealed carry laws as any other citizen.

And besides that doesn't prove it can't happen. People have used guns for self defense many times and most of these mass shootings happen in places where civilians can't bring guns (like for instance a school).

WaitWHAT:

And the fact that stand your ground laws lead to a 7-10% increase in homicides.

Wait does that include justifiable homicides or murder? Either way that's specific to those laws.

WaitWHAT:

And the fact that for every use of a gun for home defence, there are 7 used in an assault/homicide, 4 involved in a home accident and 11 used in a suicide/suicide attempt.

Yeah this only matters if you assume you could actually take guns from everyone (which even your own damn source disagrees with). Ban guns and there would be a black market and criminals might get them anyway.

WaitWHAT:

And the fact that assault victims who are armed are 4.5 more likely to be shot than unarmed assault victims. I could go on, but there's a whole list already put. You might want to read it sometime.

yeah a list cherry picked by a biased website. I'm sure Fox News has a list like that too.

yahtzee seems to be the better poet every damn episode.

Jenny Jones:

Vhite:
I am indie gun developer and find this offensive.

Make a gun that shoots shurikens and lightning please!

No, ninjas and Norse gods aren't retro or pop enough. I am artist, come back when you want Tron dupstep gun.

Fantastic episode.

Jim makes an excellent point that indie games work so hard to be original, they become samey.

Not only was Yahtzee's dark and quite fun, but we ALSO get to see lots of silly people misunderstanding his point and whining about how guns don't cause violence.

It's like the perfect video.

furai47:

mike1921:

Cars have an important transportation function, knives have an important culinary function. You can't compare a weapon to a practical tool. Guns make it easier to kill larger amounts of people and serve such a small function in civilized life. It's reasonable to require a background check for them, and to limit clip size so that you can only kill so many people with one if you're a murderer. If you're going to say this is about people wanting to ban all guns then point me to one American politican, they have to be at the level of a governor,congressman, president/VP or cabinet member, who supports such a thing. I have never heard rhetoric of banning all guns from any one important besides people using it as a strawman.

If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.
As for the car comment, why not lower the speed limit to 15mph? That way, less people would die in traffic related accidents. Even more interesting, as arriving on time is not a right given by the Constitution but merely a luxury, this should be relatively easy to do.

Yes it does. America's way too devoted to blindly sucking the cocks of the founding fathers. The constitution can be amended for a reason, because the founding fathers realized they're not perfect and don't know what technology will look like in hundreds of years. As the second amendment specifically mentions that the purpose of giving people the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, which is a much different statement back then than it is now. Back then guns were inefficient, could kill much less people with a lone madman, and the military was pretty much just dudes with same guns (although navies and cannons existed). The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people. To use the second amendment in this day and age is to not understand its purpose.

But really, isn't interpreting what was meant by the constitution the job of the supreme court? Wouldn't them looking at the clear intention of the second amendment and saying that it doesn't apply to people who are a danger to society enough?

"It's unconstitutional" is a valid reason for why a law shouldn't pass at the moment, but it should be seen as an outright demand to think "should it be unconstitutional?" and if not to fix it. It shouldn't be seen as a "oh, well then let's give up".

Because that would cripple us in a major way? Also, arriving on time isn't a luxury. Our economy sort of depends on us having a work force actually....working.

mike1921:

furai47:

mike1921:

Cars have an important transportation function, knives have an important culinary function. You can't compare a weapon to a practical tool. Guns make it easier to kill larger amounts of people and serve such a small function in civilized life. It's reasonable to require a background check for them, and to limit clip size so that you can only kill so many people with one if you're a murderer. If you're going to say this is about people wanting to ban all guns then point me to one American politican, they have to be at the level of a governor,congressman, president/VP or cabinet member, who supports such a thing. I have never heard rhetoric of banning all guns from any one important besides people using it as a strawman.

If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.
As for the car comment, why not lower the speed limit to 15mph? That way, less people would die in traffic related accidents. Even more interesting, as arriving on time is not a right given by the Constitution but merely a luxury, this should be relatively easy to do.

Yes it does. America's way too devoted to blindly sucking the cocks of the founding fathers. The constitution can be amended for a reason, because the founding fathers realized they're not perfect and don't know what technology will look like in hundreds of years. As the second amendment specifically mentions that the purpose of giving people the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, which is a much different statement back then than it is now. Back then guns were inefficient, could kill much less people with a lone madman, and the military was pretty much just dudes with same guns (although navies and cannons existed). The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people. To use the second amendment in this day and age is to not understand its purpose.

If there was an open rebellion there's a possibility that the rebels could get foreign aide. Hell we got in the revolutionary war and that helped.

Father Time:

mike1921:

furai47:

If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.
As for the car comment, why not lower the speed limit to 15mph? That way, less people would die in traffic related accidents. Even more interesting, as arriving on time is not a right given by the Constitution but merely a luxury, this should be relatively easy to do.

Yes it does. America's way too devoted to blindly sucking the cocks of the founding fathers. The constitution can be amended for a reason, because the founding fathers realized they're not perfect and don't know what technology will look like in hundreds of years. As the second amendment specifically mentions that the purpose of giving people the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, which is a much different statement back then than it is now. Back then guns were inefficient, could kill much less people with a lone madman, and the military was pretty much just dudes with same guns (although navies and cannons existed). The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people. To use the second amendment in this day and age is to not understand its purpose.

If there was an open rebellion there's a possibility that the rebels could get foreign aide. Hell we got in the revolutionary war and that helped.

So the foreign aid would include things that would actually make it viable to fight the US military...but it won't include the right guns?

mike1921:

Yes it does. America's way too devoted to blindly sucking the cocks of the founding fathers. The constitution can be amended for a reason, because the founding fathers realized they're not perfect and don't know what technology will look like in hundreds of years. As the second amendment specifically mentions that the purpose of giving people the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, which is a much different statement back then than it is now. Back then guns were inefficient, could kill much less people with a lone madman, and the military was pretty much just dudes with same guns (although navies and cannons existed). The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people. To use the second amendment in this day and age is to not understand its purpose.

But really, isn't interpreting what was meant by the constitution the job of the supreme court? Wouldn't them looking at the clear intention of the second amendment and saying that it doesn't apply to people who are a danger to society enough?

"It's unconstitutional" is a valid reason for why a law shouldn't pass at the moment, but it should be seen as an outright demand to think "should it be unconstitutional?" and if not to fix it. It shouldn't be seen as a "oh, well then let's give up".

Because that would cripple us in a major way? Also, arriving on time isn't a luxury. Our economy sort of depends on us having a work force actually....working.

Hence why it's called the second _amendment_. Look a few post above you, I've no qualms with the government going through with amending the constitution. But whatever law they want to pass they have to do in form of an amendment, as any other is automatically squashed by the second. If it can be circumvented this way, I see no reason why the first, fourth or the fourteenth can't be in a similar fashion. And yet people always get uppity when those are at stake.

By the way, you do realise that the US has its military and that there's also a standing army (a "militia" of sorts) of each individual state, which must by law be supplied with the exact same hardware that the military is, right? People get guns, rifles, shotguns etc. and the standing army gets military hardware so as to resist the military should the government decide to use it on its people. This is what the second amendment also protects.

It most certainly would be enough for the Supreme court to do so. So if it's such a clear cut case, why haven't they?

See my first paragraph.

You can leave early. If 300 people last year are worth banning assault rifles or passing illegal laws, then surely 30000 people are worth lowering the speed limit. Especially since the former is a right codified (not given) by the US Constitution.

mike1921:

Father Time:

mike1921:

Yes it does. America's way too devoted to blindly sucking the cocks of the founding fathers. The constitution can be amended for a reason, because the founding fathers realized they're not perfect and don't know what technology will look like in hundreds of years. As the second amendment specifically mentions that the purpose of giving people the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, which is a much different statement back then than it is now. Back then guns were inefficient, could kill much less people with a lone madman, and the military was pretty much just dudes with same guns (although navies and cannons existed). The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people. To use the second amendment in this day and age is to not understand its purpose.

If there was an open rebellion there's a possibility that the rebels could get foreign aide. Hell we got in the revolutionary war and that helped.

So the foreign aid would include things that would actually make it viable to fight the US military...but it won't include the right guns?

They'd probably be less likely to support a rebellion that wouldn't stand on it's own for more than a week.

Oh uh pretend I phrased that in a rhetorical question.

Living in a country without guns, it is hard to understand why Americans are so tolerant of them. Between 1986 and 1996 we had 11 mass shootings in Australia. In 1996 there was a shooting in the tourist town of Port Arthur. 35 people were killed. Following the event the government legislated popular gun control laws and a gun buyback scheme.
Since then there have been no mass shootings in Australia. Neither was there a torrent of angry drivers running people over, no inundation of wannabe Samurais attacking people with swords or knives. There was simply a lot less death.

What sort of person wants the right to have a killing machine?
Why don't Americans relate guns to gun-related crime?

furai47:

It most certainly would be enough for the Supreme court to do so. So if it's such a clear cut case, why haven't they?

In the words of Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
That seems like a pretty clear cut case of them saying it is constitutional to limit firearms according to certain conditions. If they go out of their way to say "yea it's fine to keep the guns away from felons" ain't it safe to assume that they also would be supportive of being able to check if they're felons?

You can leave early. If 300 people last year are worth banning assault rifles or passing illegal laws, then surely 30000 people are worth lowering the speed limit. Especially since the former is a right codified (not given) by the US Constitution.

Except banning assault rifles harms no one, lowering the speed limit harms everyone.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here