VP Joe Biden Claims "No Restriction" Against Taxing Violent Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

bfgmetalhead:
I love being an Englishman at times, one reason is that we don't have to deal with this. Non-religious government ftw.

What about the Church of England? The Archbishop of Canterbury is selected by the government.

Even though religion gets intermixed with our politics in the U.S., we still have no official religion, and few can agree on a single faith. Christianity in our country is extremely heterogeneous, and there's no one faith that even comes close to a majority.

More importantly, the First Amendment explicitly prohibits any government interference with the practice of religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Compare this with the less absolute wording of the ECHR, which is binding in the UK:

The freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law...

So even though we may have more faith-based proposals in the U.S., they usually get struck down by the court system.

Clovus:

bfgmetalhead:
I love being an Englishman at times, one reason is that we don't have to deal with this. Non-religious government ftw.

Well, on issue like this, ie free speech, I'd rather be in the US actually. Politicians can pass all the dumb laws they want regarding Free Speech, but they'll just get overturned by the Supreme Court. Great Britain has those really awful defamation laws that makes it really easy for journalists to be harrassed for reporting negative information.

Haha, if only. The government recently tried to reign in some of the media's outrageous privacy invasion and political influence by setting up an independent regulatory body. The newspapers basically said "No.", and that was the end of that.

You are right though, that parliament is sovereign and has technically limitless power. However, the Human Rights Act 1998 made the highest court of appeal the European Court of Human Rights. And, while parliament could just repeal the Human Rights Act if it wanted, it still effectively makes the European Convention on Human Rights an entrenched bill of rights for UK citizens.

Your sane gun laws have probably avoided the kind of high profile violence that could lead to taxes, bans, and age restrictions on violent video games. But, if enough British politicians really pushed for something like that and passed it, I don't think it would be overturned by a court, right? I've definitely read about some MPs who are very unhappy about video games. Other countries like Australia and Germany have all kinds of weird restrictions. Actually, doesn't Britain still have a "classification" system that ends up banning certain movies and games?

I am really interested in a response to this. I didn't spend an hour researching this stuff before hand. I know I've been surprised by the lack of some aspects of free speech in some European countries before.

I can't think of any game that has been banned apart from Manhunt. The classification system doesn't ban anything. The only difference between ours and the US's is that selling a product to someone below the age of its classification is illegal.

Desert Punk:

amaranth_dru:
Joe Biden. This is the guy who takes over if something happens to Obama. This guy. And people, you voted for him if you voted Obama. Pray nothing happens to Obama.

Or pray if someone takes a shot they get em both :P

Would be far more productive!

For me to feel safe about the country's succession you'd have to go pretty far down the line... I don't want to even contemplate that right now.

There are no words in my vocabulary that can convey the level of hatred I have for the current American government system. Everything has to be politicized and foster dissent. I'd at least hope they'd keep their grubby legislative hands firmly in reality, but I knew that would be too much to ask for. Wonder if it's too late to give enlightened despotism a shot...

Leximodicon:
Oh America, when will you stop being the xenophobic laughing stock of the civilized world?

I fought for this country and buried several good friends for this country. So I think I can safely say from personal experience working with our government....

Never...

American politicians can serve till they are dead of old age(not the president though)..... How many 90+ year olds do you know that can understand ANYTHING happening today? Not just repeat what they hear on the TV?
image

VMK:
Yeah, yeah, second ammendment... Written during muskets era... I bet Washington & Co knew that in the future we'll have firearms that can literally slaughter about 50 people in about 15 seconds.

Anyhow, about percentages... Any info?

Oh, you mean guns that cost hundreds, if not, thousands of dollars? Largely owned by government organizations? Because I don't think you understand exactly it is what the second amendment is supposed to do. It's supposed to protect an individual freedom to protect themselves. The Consitution is meant to limit the control the government has over its citizens so that we aren't ruled by any fascist regime.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Ah Biden, you never fail to make me laugh whether it's with daft statements like this, or when somebody makes a humourous Arrested Development image with you involved.

image

Politicians: telling people the lies they want to believe so they can keep getting elected.

FalloutJack:

VMK:

So... Was it intentional or unintetional imperfection of the most important legal act in USA?

Jokes aside, how many people are against possible future gun control policy in USA? I just want to understand this little thing I wrote about previously.

I tend to believe that gun laws are the way they are because it was not merely the United States army at the time that fought off Great Britain, but any old shmoe with a gun. The idea was that "Okay, in the event of an invasion, citizens have the legal right to take arms against those who would do harm to them" because of an uncertain future. Since then, and definitely before, this sort of privelege has been abused. What follows is, of course, the law then determining the appropriate use of guns and laying down heavily on misuse, and so on. The thing is...we already had guns. They happened and they weren't going to un-happen. You have two choices, then. You either integrate them into society and try to work with them or you alienate them from society and leaven those without wanting in a time of need. It's a sad case of have and have-not.

Really, gun control is a slippery devil to mess with, but I think if you try to control them in a manner the people won't agree with, you'll have alot of gun-toting folks out there to deal with, exactly what any invader would have to handle. Would you inflict that on our own authorities? Those boys have enough on their plate. In my opinion, criminals without guns over the years would start to get cleverer, more capable in a fight because maybe they have no gun, or that they DO when other people don't. Law-abiding citizens are law-abiding citizens, but some people laugh in your face and then shoot. Truthfully, though, if we started getting clever people who are better at being shitty people, we'dd have more problems than idiots with guns. We'd have professionals. I once heard about a man who held up a gas station with a hunk of wood! Which one - the robber or the gas attendant - is dumber, I don't know, but a gun controlled world might have that stick-user pulling out something smarter.

I DO think that there is nothing I can disagree with in your post, Mr. Jack. Although, it took many centuries for people to accept representatives of non-white descendancy, gay people too. Maybe it is what USA needs. A bit of time.

Plus, as far as I am aware, no one wants to take away hunting rifles, pistols and such, only automatic firearms. Is it really that bad?

Don't blame Biden. Blame the people who voted for him.

tehpiemaker:

VMK:
Yeah, yeah, second ammendment... Written during muskets era... I bet Washington & Co knew that in the future we'll have firearms that can literally slaughter about 50 people in about 15 seconds.

Anyhow, about percentages... Any info?

Oh, you mean guns that cost hundreds, if not, thousands of dollars? Largely owned by government organizations? Because I don't think you understand exactly it is what the second amendment is supposed to do. It's supposed to protect an individual freedom to protect themselves. The Consitution is meant to limit the control the government has over its citizens so that we aren't ruled by any fascist regime.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

But do You really need machine guns and assault rifles for protection? Really? Because that is what is planned to be banned, as far as I am aware.

Also, You know what? You already HAVE sold your freedom for security: you have speed limits on the roads (freedom sacrifice), that ensure safety on the roads (security), and other things.
Yes, I understand that I am dealing with absolutes right now, but do You really believe that somewhen Your country will actually need to rebel against it's goverment, or to protect itself from invasion? Because first case is practcally impossible, because Your political machine is one of the most well-oiled ones in the world, people really do have power there. In second case, surely attack will come from the sky (bombs, aliens...) and firearms are not really useful against such attack.

By the way, it is MY people that are having certain problems with OUR goverment, WE are in dire need of action, but I would not give even a 9mm pistol to anyone, because I know, that while many people are responsible, most will use them (firearms) in illegal way. Not criminal, but shooting stray cats "for da lulz" would be quite common.

Does anyone really care what Joe Biden says anymore, really?

VMK:
Zoop

I don't think anyone's actually going to try and take away guns that are legitimate hunting/defending pieces, no. However, you know how people are. Still, it's never the ownership of a gun in any form that worries me, but the person behind it. It's not guns that need the control, but the people. Time to work on things? Good notion. A psychological evaluation would be a better one. People who want guns should be screened. That would be safer without having to worry about the guns AND you're attacking the problem where it is.

I can't stand Joe Biden, but it's worth noting that he is not showing support for such a tax, but merely stating it could be legally implemented. There is a huge difference there, and he's absolutely right. The fact that he wanted to continue research instead of blindly proposing such a tax is a good thing, and doesn't warrant the knee-jerk reactions I'm seeing in this thread.

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. I do still think he's an idiot, though. Honestly, this is one of the smarter things he's said.

FalloutJack:

VMK:
Zoop

I don't think anyone's actually going to try and take away guns that are legitimate hunting/defending pieces, no. However, you know how people are. Still, it's never the ownership of a gun in any form that worries me, but the person behind it. It's not guns that need the control, but the people. Time to work on things? Good notion. A psychological evaluation would be a better one. People who want guns should be screened. That would be safer without having to worry about the guns AND you're attacking the problem where it is.

Well, people can go bonkers AFTER getting their license, but overall I agree. Also, as far as I am aware, in many southern states, firearms are sold like candies (correct me if I am wrong, please). This must be changed too, I think.

VMK:

Well, people can go bonkers AFTER getting their license, but overall I agree. Also, as far as I am aware, in many southern states, firearms are sold like candies (correct me if I am wrong, please). This must be changed too, I think.

True, but THEN we can claim that it couldn't have been predicted, that we gave a gun to someone for whom doctors believed in the mental health of.

As for southern states, uhhh...I live in Pittsburgh. I don't actually know what goes on down there. Can someone from maybe Texas give us an answer here?

I guess we're going to ignore the followup remark about needing more comprehensive evidence and study before we start throwing taxes on things, huh? Because that actually seems like a sign of a pretty reasonable stance from Joey. "Yes, we COULD tax it... but shouldn't we have some evidence first?" You're right... let's guess at how those quotes are supposed to fit together based on hearsay and then crucify Biden for potentially remaining open-minded.

This is the same Biden who came online and said we need more data before we condemn anything. The one who pointed out that good, comprehensive data helped vindicate other industries once thought to be harmful. Yeah, this Biden here: http://kotaku.com/5978765/joe-biden-on-video-game-violence-we-shouldnt-be-afraid-of-the-facts

Can we please stop villifying the people who are trying to be reasonable and get both sides talking reasonably and rationally?

Leximodicon:
Oh America, when will you stop being the xenophobic laughing stock of the civilized world?

It would never pass in either House or Senate. A tax on all violent media would effect movies studios and cable/broadcast stations. Merica!'s culture is mostly violence based.

VMK:

Schadrach:

VMK:
Meanwhile, in New Orleans another shooting happened. Three guys gunned Mother day parade participants...With real world guns... that shoot real world bullets... at real world people.

Americans, question: what percentage of American citizens are against gun restriction? I just want to understand whether your politicians are idiots (or pretending to be ones), or they just don't want to lose votes?

The reason why serious gun control is unconstitutional is literally right next to the reason why a "violent media tax" is unconstitutional.

Yeah, yeah, second ammendment... Written during muskets era... I bet Washington & Co knew that in the future we'll have firearms that can literally slaughter about 50 people in about 15 seconds.

You really *REALLY* don't want to argue that the 2nd doesn't apply today because the people who penned it could not know what technology would be developed in the future and as such it shouldn't apply to that technology. That's an UNBELIEVABLY BAD line of logic to use, because precisely the same logic will then get applied to the 1st, and the lack of film, video games, or internet in the late 18th century.

Yeah, yeah, first ammendment... Written during printing press and wax cylinders era... I bet Washington & Co knew that in the future we'll have machines that can literally communicate any insane message without restriction worldwide in seconds.

When you hear talk like this: "We need to investigate, look into, study further, no reason we can't do this..." etc. That is simply sending a clear message " Give us lobbyist money or we will find a way to hurt your profits and ruin your industry. We will make up irrational laws on the fly and stir the populace up into a tizzy until you pay us enough to go away for awhile."

There are plenty of social issues that are well known and need immediate help but they of course are not represented by major corporations with deep pockets.

Our hobby/entertainment, its' industry has plenty of lobbyist to make this all go away, it is now only matter of settling on the price.

Tax discrimination against violent video games is just a degree of censoring them. And with the video game industry struggling as they do, it'll probably make it very difficult for American game studios to produce games with violent content. Also, what constitutes a "violent" video game? Depending on your definition, some of the best games of our generation could be included.

Seriously, screw this shit.

DVS BSTrD:
I'm sorry but when I saw the picture all I could think of "My dick is THIS big"

I died.

VMK:

tehpiemaker:

VMK:
Yeah, yeah, second ammendment... Written during muskets era... I bet Washington & Co knew that in the future we'll have firearms that can literally slaughter about 50 people in about 15 seconds.

Anyhow, about percentages... Any info?

Oh, you mean guns that cost hundreds, if not, thousands of dollars? Largely owned by government organizations? Because I don't think you understand exactly it is what the second amendment is supposed to do. It's supposed to protect an individual freedom to protect themselves. The Consitution is meant to limit the control the government has over its citizens so that we aren't ruled by any fascist regime.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

But do You really need machine guns and assault rifles for protection? Really? Because that is what is planned to be banned, as far as I am aware.

Also, You know what? You already HAVE sold your freedom for security: you have speed limits on the roads (freedom sacrifice), that ensure safety on the roads (security), and other things.
Yes, I understand that I am dealing with absolutes right now, but do You really believe that somewhen Your country will actually need to rebel against it's goverment, or to protect itself from invasion? Because first case is practcally impossible, because Your political machine is one of the most well-oiled ones in the world, people really do have power there. In second case, surely attack will come from the sky (bombs, aliens...) and firearms are not really useful against such attack.

By the way, it is MY people that are having certain problems with OUR goverment, WE are in dire need of action, but I would not give even a 9mm pistol to anyone, because I know, that while many people are responsible, most will use them (firearms) in illegal way. Not criminal, but shooting stray cats "for da lulz" would be quite common.

You seem to be under the misconception that I, someone who believes in the second amendment, am just a gun toting nut that can't wait rebel against the government. To put it simply, you're wrong about that. I don't have any assault rifles, machine guns, or bombs. Just a regular 9mm pistol kept in case and hidden away in case of emergencies.

The next issue you bring up, concerning the futility of rebellion against a supreme power,doesn't really hold water. Although I don't believe that the need to rebel is at all likely, I believe that if such a case did warrant an act of taking up arms it wouldn't matter if we were "likely" to succeed. The only real questions is whether your willing to die for your values. Don't fight for the winning team. Fight for the right team. My personal believe is though that the government is there to serve the people; not the other way around.

Quoting you,"...but I would not give even a 9mm pistol to anyone, because I know, that while many people are responsible, most will use them (firearms) in illegal way." that sounds just dumb. Perhaps you meant "immoral" and not "illegal", but if you meant what you said--and I am taking you at what your word--then is clearly the most backward thinking I have ever heard. What if the law you're breaking is wrong? What if the law supports segregation or suppression of speech? What if a law, such as outlawing guns, only exists to take away any resistance against those that would prefer to see their citizens as slaves? It is more chivalrous to think critically of why such laws exist. Then decide if they're worth supporting.

We need security to survive, but freedom to thrive. We don't live all our lives to live a worry free life in our parents basement. That's why we let our children go to public school. Freedom acknowledges that we better ourselves from learning from bad situation as well as good. Bad things happen, but we learn to deal with it. Kids get bullied in school, but everyone learns valuable social skills. Does that mean all kids should be home schooled so that they won't get called names?--or should we teach them how to properly deal with people they don't like? People learn more from adversity.

VMK:
But do You really need machine guns and assault rifles for protection? Really? Because that is what is planned to be banned, as far as I am aware.

Machine guns (defined in our laws as anything full-auto) are already effectively banned in this country. The debated "assault weapons ban" covers cosmetic and ergonomic features like a pistol grip or adjustable stock. So a rifle without these features is legal, while adding an adjustable stock for comfort would be banned.

By the way, it is MY people that are having certain problems with OUR goverment, WE are in dire need of action, but I would not give even a 9mm pistol to anyone, because I know, that while many people are responsible, most will use them (firearms) in illegal way. Not criminal, but shooting stray cats "for da lulz" would be quite common.

Wow, you must know some real sociopaths then.

The Plunk:

Clovus:

bfgmetalhead:
I love being an Englishman at times, one reason is that we don't have to deal with this. Non-religious government ftw.

Well, on issue like this, ie free speech, I'd rather be in the US actually. Politicians can pass all the dumb laws they want regarding Free Speech, but they'll just get overturned by the Supreme Court. Great Britain has those really awful defamation laws that makes it really easy for journalists to be harrassed for reporting negative information.

Haha, if only. The government recently tried to reign in some of the media's outrageous privacy invasion and political influence by setting up an independent regulatory body. The newspapers basically said "No.", and that was the end of that.

Oh, I didn't mean the government could harass journalists; I meant other private citizens and corporations. If I understand the libel laws (which I don't since I confused them with defamation), it's much easier to end up in court for libel in the UK than in the US. It's pretty hard to be convicted or lose a libel suit in the US.

You are right though, that parliament is sovereign and has technically limitless power. However, the Human Rights Act 1998 made the highest court of appeal the European Court of Human Rights. And, while parliament could just repeal the Human Rights Act if it wanted, it still effectively makes the European Convention on Human Rights an entrenched bill of rights for UK citizens.

Right, it's only the fringe stuff where we differ. Like, you can have much more stringent laws about racism than we generally can, right? The European Convention on Human Rights isn't nearly as sweeping as the US First Amendment. Age restrictions is another example of a difference - ours aren't enforced by law.

Your sane gun laws have probably avoided the kind of high profile violence that could lead to taxes, bans, and age restrictions on violent video games. But, if enough British politicians really pushed for something like that and passed it, I don't think it would be overturned by a court, right? I've definitely read about some MPs who are very unhappy about video games. Other countries like Australia and Germany have all kinds of weird restrictions. Actually, doesn't Britain still have a "classification" system that ends up banning certain movies and games?

I am really interested in a response to this. I didn't spend an hour researching this stuff before hand. I know I've been surprised by the lack of some aspects of free speech in some European countries before.

I can't think of any game that has been banned apart from Manhunt. The classification system doesn't ban anything. The only difference between ours and the US's is that selling a product to someone below the age of its classification is illegal.

Also Carmageddon. So, yeah, there's little of this now and even for film classification it isn't a problem anymore. A film like "Anti-Christ" wouldn't have made it through the system just a few years ago. I could imagine future games the incorporate stronger themes possibly having trouble as well.

But, yeah, freedom of speech certainly isn't a problem in the UK, but it definitely has been in the past and it is possible, though very unlikely, for it to be in the future. Unlike with some other issues, I'd say the US has stronger protections in place for free speech.

At this point I am surprised Obama isn't being pressured to launch an insurance into activisions headquarters, looking for terrorists who programme the games to subliminally train innocent kids on how to kill.

How the fuck do you get from "should there be more gun laws" to "lets study games to see how they effect people"? Not that I've ever tried to kill somebody with a CD but I bet it could be tricky.

Oh, they mean they train me how to use a gun? Even though these guns are almost silent and have fuck all recoil ... If I wanted to learn how to use a gun, wouldn't I go to a firing range? Instead of taxing games, tax ranges!

VMK:

Schadrach:

VMK:
Meanwhile, in New Orleans another shooting happened. Three guys gunned Mother day parade participants...With real world guns... that shoot real world bullets... at real world people.

Americans, question: what percentage of American citizens are against gun restriction? I just want to understand whether your politicians are idiots (or pretending to be ones), or they just don't want to lose votes?

The reason why serious gun control is unconstitutional is literally right next to the reason why a "violent media tax" is unconstitutional.

Yeah, yeah, second ammendment... Written during muskets era... I bet Washington & Co knew that in the future we'll have firearms that can literally slaughter about 50 people in about 15 seconds.

Anyhow, about percentages... Any info?

Someone doesn't know about the Puckle gun, on top of cannons. Cannons that could be loaded with canister shot. Cannons which at the time, were privately owned and leased to the fledgling United States government.

You know, the same thing could be said about 1A too. At the time all they had to communicate with was a meeting or the printing press. They could not even begin to imagine the world we live in today, where you can coordinate attacks from around the world in an instant.

People who think this is about violent video games or guns are just plain ignorant. It's about a further tax revenue for the shitty US Government. And if you don't see that, you are part of the problem.

Oh great, this BS again.

Seriously, is there ANY value to this discussion besides scoring easy points with old fucks?
That is the fundamental problem aswell, half the people in office are old fucks.

They still believe "video games" are for the nerdy and elitest of the elite computer knowledge wise and hardly anyone got one.

News flash, that aint true.

Besides, if someone with ZERO video games in his house would shoot a room full of people they say "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Because their beloved precious AR15/M4 variant comes in danger.

However if he has even ONE video game is his house. Even if it is dora the bloody explorer, video games get blamed.

I still vote for, whenever this topic comes up in this way by a politician, it is a valid counter argument to say;

"no seriously, fuck off."

And like the user above me said, what i foolishly overlooked while going on this small rant;

It's all about the benjamins.

There's multiple problems with this. First, when he says there's no legal reason, what he means is that there's no legal precedent. The legality of such a policy is unknown BUT chances are that it would fail. By and large, the government avoids regulation of the media -- that's not to say entirely, but by a large margin.

Setting a strange precedent like taxing 'violent video games' opens the door for a lot of potential censorship issues that could be applied to all media, not just video games. The chilling effect would be pretty substantial across the board, because once the legal precedent has been set with video games, books, movies, and music can all quickly be covered under the Media Sanitation efforts (as I'm coming to think of them).

The chilling effect comes in because violence, specifically in video games, is a vague concept. It's easy to say something is 'violent.' Arguments could be made about Mario Kart being violent and promoting road rage, or that Minecraft promotes violence because it has swords. Even adding a qualify like "violence against humans" gets muddy because what level of fidelity has to be matched with 'humans' to qualify for the violence law.

Vagueness is one of the reasons that the Brown vs. EMA was decided in favor of the EMA. Senator Yee's bill could not adequately quantify the term 'ultra-violent' sufficiently for the Justices (there were other precedents cited in there, I'm just saying vagueness was one of them - lack of preponderance of evidence on the negative effects of video games was another big one).

The vagueness of legislating for 'violent' has 2 potential outcomes - either thrown out as unenforceable due to vagueness or a chilling effect in media to do everything possible to avoid being labelled as violent. The chilling effect would likely have far reaching, intended consequences.

Joe Biden: Once again demonstrating that just because you can speak doesn't mean you should.

YEeeeeeeeeeeeeeah look its Joe Biden pretending to be important by trying to impose more fascist government control with the guise of protecting people!

Le sigh... gotta love politicians. They truly have no care in the world other then increasing their own power.

Yay for me being cynical!

bfgmetalhead:
I love being an Englishman at times, one reason is that we don't have to deal with this. Non-religious government ftw.

How is religion the problem here? I'm somehow Christian, yet want gun regulation similar to how things are in Australia, and also not supportive of what Biden is doing here, or of ignorance in the country in general.

The original founders of the United States were, in majority, deists and/or agnostics, therefore meaning most of our primary laws were set by men actually not that religious. Or that maybe the whole "all Christians are conservative derps" is becoming one of the most tired stereotypes on the internet and are almost immediate sign of lack of actually knowing what you're talking about? Also, Britain produced Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, not America. They are far more genuinely talking about religion (in Lewis' case, going so far as to discussing several other major philosophical beliefs before even touching upon his own faith in Christianity) when you really think about it, than any Tea Party advocate talking about "family values" like as if having the right for a four year old to have a gun is somehow more important than accepting the fact that homosexuality shouldn't be a mark upon someone or that racism shouldn't be encouraged by this point. Did you ever consider maybe it's just politicians and would-be politicians (looking at you, Glenn Beck) taking things to almost parodical extremes and sheep that follow them mindlessly that are the cause? It almost reads like a Mel Brooks movie but unfortunately is the reality we live in.

VMK:
Plus, as far as I am aware, no one wants to take away hunting rifles, pistols and such, only automatic firearms. Is it really that bad?

You talking about the "assault weapons" laws that have been proposed and generally shot down in several places?

You show a terrible misunderstanding of what is meant by "assault weapons."

First of, fully automatic weapons (the kind you can "spray and pray" with) are already restricted, in that they require a special license that is fairly expensive to own, and are individually very very expensive guns.

The "assault weapons" laws that have been tried recently use relatively stupid definitions of what qualifies as an "assault weapon", to the point that in certain cases there were nerf guns that qualify and in others one could hot glue some things to a baseball bat and it would technically qualify. Some made it such that changing the stock or grip on an otherwise OK weapon would redefine it to be an assault weapon (hint: the stock and grip have nothing to do with how many rounds one can fire in a given unit time or the destructive potential of said rounds). Others defined any semi-automatic (those are the ones that fire one round when the trigger is pulled, but eject the casing and load another round so it's ready for another trigger pull and are literally almost everything you think of when you think of handguns) weapon that could support a magazine holding more than n rounds as an assault weapon (protip: any weapon with a detachable magazine theoretically "can support" a magazine of basically arbitrary size, accordingly this qualified all semi-automatic weapons that have a detachable magazine as assault weapons, because you could technically make a large enough magazine).

bfgmetalhead:
I love being an Englishman at times, one reason is that we don't have to deal with this. Non-religious government ftw.

US is weird. It >feels< like a largely liberal leaning country that is run by a seemingly universally conservative government.

I think the problem is that fundamentalists are more driven and are more likely to vote because of it. Like they maybe see their goals as being not only correct but immediately important.

Or something, I dunno. I just know its weird living here sometimes. This whole TSA tail between the legs kneejerk after 9/11, the surveillance state thing that neither reduces crime nor improves prosecution rates (just makes folks uncomfortable), and then the government being run by folks who apparently got C's or worse in their maths and sciences.

I know they are mostly lawyers but that's almost hard for me to believe because I feel like being good with law would require solid mental faculties. So strange.

Parakeettheprawn:
How is religion the problem here? I'm somehow Christian, yet want gun regulation similar to how things are in Australia, and also not supportive of what Biden is doing here, or of ignorance in the country in general.

The original founders of the United States were, in majority, deists and/or agnostics, therefore meaning most of our primary laws were set by men actually not that religious. Or that maybe the whole "all Christians are conservative derps" is becoming one of the most tired stereotypes on the internet and are almost immediate sign of lack of actually knowing what you're talking about? Also, Britain produced Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, not America. They are far more genuinely talking about religion (in Lewis' case, going so far as to discussing several other major philosophical beliefs before even touching upon his own faith in Christianity) when you really think about it, than any Tea Party advocate talking about "family values" like as if having the right for a four year old to have a gun is somehow more important than accepting the fact that homosexuality shouldn't be a mark upon someone or that racism shouldn't be encouraged by this point. Did you ever consider maybe it's just politicians and would-be politicians (looking at you, Glenn Beck) taking things to almost parodical extremes and sheep that follow them mindlessly that are the cause? It almost reads like a Mel Brooks movie but unfortunately is the reality we live in.

Ehhh...

The founding fathers were deists but the majority of congressmen were not. There is such thing as moderate religious people (the majority probably are) but these people are not who are elected as lawmakers.

Given how Slavery and other injustices in the Early US History were adamantly defended as being "the word of god" sort of poops in your point too. The US has consistently used faith to support injustice for centuries now. Even in the 90's you could listen to dozens upon dozens of congressmen specifically citing the Christian God as their reasoning for hating homosexuals.

It's still present now but they are becoming less vocal about linking it with Christianity now because even large Christian organizations seem to be quietly flipping their views on the issue of homosexuals being human. Which is nice, its good to see Bigotry getting punched in the balls.

PS. US Family Values groups always cite Christianity as the source for their movement as well.

bfgmetalhead:
I love being an Englishman at times, one reason is that we don't have to deal with this. Non-religious government ftw.

Even better, if something ever came of this (which is extremely unlikely since it's a throwaway answer given after a vague question) we could advertise the UK as a tax free videogame company haven. Come to us Valve! bring your jobs and money! We'll let you keep it... mostly.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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