The Gun Conversation

[OSUViking 505]

Im trying to figure out why someone would take issue with him.

 

He screams conspiracy every time I've heard him and he comes off as the modern equivalent to a Nativist.

[BUCK3Y3 44]

I was hoping he'd drill Piers Morgan in the face.

[Maverick 791]

I've already been down this debate on here so I'm not grtting into it, , but ManBearPig, you're not alone.

 

You make a lot of good points. Wish you were around a few weeks ago lol...

Edited January 19, 2013 by Maverick

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Alex Jones for his faults completely owned the British douche, he also had quite a few good points about AR's and he was completely right about the people who are against the owning of AR's using the same tired lame ass script.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[OSUViking 505]

Alex Jones for his faults completely owned the British douche, he also had quite a few good points about AR's and he was completely right about the people who are against the owning of AR's using the same tired lame ass script.

 

I'm sorry if I don't think he owned Piers Morgan simply because there was never any debate? And because Alex Jones did nothing but accuse Morgan of using "factoids", which is exactly what he himself did?

 

Alex Jones pulled a Romney/Obama/Biden here and just talked louder. I don't think there was any real debate, which is why you don't see me defending Morgan (I don't know if I would defend him anyway... I just think Alex Jones made himself look like an idiot).

[seanbrock 1,684]

Alex Jones for his faults completely owned the British douche, he also had quite a few good points about AR's and he was completely right about the people who are against the owning of AR's using the same tired lame ass script.

Alex Jones owned nobody but himself and this is coming from somebody who generally likes the guy. He played right into Piers Morgan's hands.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Selling drugs out of the spotlight =/= making it look like 25 young children were killed in the most public way possible.

 

What in the hell does Newtown have to do with the War on Drugs? Is it the fact that you have nothing else to say on the War on Drugs to paint me as crazy or "just that conspiracy guy"?

 

You guys all act like the Government isn't smart or competent enough to organize such conspiracies. You would be sadly mistaken. And when there actually is a conspiracy that is laced in truth, fact, and nothing but... You refer to other conspiracies (one I haven't even commented on, none the less) to try to discredit what I say.

 

Argue it, if you wish. Don't divert in an effort save face.

 

 

On the other Alex Jones / Morgan discussion. I generally don't like Alex. I listen to him at times, and I enjoy the fight he is fighting. But he is so over dramatic and theatrical that it is hard to take him seriously.

 

Piers played into that very well, got Alex to tilt and look like a crazy person (not hard to do, btw). The argument was far from in his favor though.

 

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I don't think anyone really won that debate. Morgan didn't defend his ideology well and Jones made the "pro-gun" crowd look like a bunch of raving lunatics.

 

This man is very well educated. Im trying to figure out why someone would take issue with him. Hes correct. Piers Morgan is a dickbag.

 

Alex Jones is very well educated? Now I've heard it all.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[BUCK3Y3 44]

I don't think anyone really won that debate. Morgan didn't defend his ideology well and Jones made the "pro-gun" crowd look like a bunch of raving lunatics.

 

 

 

Alex Jones is very well educated? Now I've heard it all.

 

On the topic at hand yes he is. I didnt say he was Isaac Newton.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't think anyone really won that debate. Morgan didn't defend his ideology well and Jones made the "pro-gun" crowd look like a bunch of raving lunatics.

 

 

 

Alex Jones is very well educated? Now I've heard it all.

 

He does that all the time though, unfortunately. Even on his own show when nobody is coming after him or provoking him. He just makes everyone who listens to him sound completely bat shit insane, which is too bad, because there is, relatively speaking, quite a bit of truth to what he says.

[BUCK3Y3 44]

He does that all the time though, unfortunately. Even on his own show when nobody is coming after him or provoking him. He just makes everyone who listens to him sound completely bat shit insane, which is too bad, because there is, relatively speaking, quite a bit of truth to what he says.

 

I watched a few of his videos. I dont agree with everything he say but I agree with alot of it. Hes a passionate guy. I respect that.

[blotsfan 2,112]

What in the hell does Newtown have to do with the War on Drugs? Is it the fact that you have nothing else to say on the War on Drugs to paint me as crazy or "just that conspiracy guy"?

 

You guys all act like the Government isn't smart or competent enough to organize such conspiracies. You would be sadly mistaken. And when there actually is a conspiracy that is laced in truth, fact, and nothing but... You refer to other conspiracies (one I haven't even commented on, none the less) to try to discredit what I say.

 

Argue it, if you wish. Don't divert in an effort save face.

My point was more that saying "well the government could do this, why not newtown (or 9/11, moon landing, whatever)" doesnt work because i dont think the scandal of selling drugs compares to intentionally killing its own citizens in order to achieve a goal. The drug thing is plausible to me (though I cant say ive ever heard of it).

 

Oh, and the war on drugs is stupid. Its pretty hard to argue that.

Edited January 19, 2013 by blotsfan

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Alex Jones owned nobody but himself and this is coming from somebody who generally likes the guy. He played right into Piers Morgan's hands.

 

I will agree he got a bit over zealous which made him look like a child but as far as facts go, he owned him.

[OSUViking 505]

Most likely because he interrupted Piers every time he tried to use a "factoid". Jones showed he's awful at debating just through his form.

[Vin+ 3,121]

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/25/elected-officials-continue-to-blame-games-for-violence

In the wake of the tragic shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, politicians from across the spectrum have been sounding off on what they think the various causes of violence in the United States are. President Obama himself requested Congress fund a study on violent video games, otherwise leaving the entertainment industries on their own to continue unabated.

 

But that hasn’t stopped other vocal politicians from getting in on the action with a finger squarely pointed at violent video games.

 

In a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, California State Senator Leland Yee (Democrat) was quoted as stating: “Gamers have got to just quiet down. Gamers have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for violence and the industry’s lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.”

 

Leland Yee is perhaps best known in gaming circles for AB1179, a California state bill written in 2005 and designed to “require violent games to be labeled as specified [in the bill] and would prohibit the sale or rental of those violent video games, as defined, to minors. The bill would provide that a person who violates the act shall be liable in an amount of up to $1,000 for each violation.” The bill passed the state legislature and was signed by the governor, but overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

Newly-elected Connecticut Senator Christopher Murphy (Democrat) is also getting in on the act. As The Washington Examiner points out (via GamePolitics), Murphy stated (in the video below) that “there’s a question as to whether [the Sandy Hook shooter] would have driven in his mother’s car in the first place if he didn’t have access to a weapon that he saw in video games that gave him a false sense of courage about what he could do that day.”

 

In the United States, the content of video games – regardless of how violent or offensive – is considered to be protected under the First Amendment, as is the case with other media. The Amendment reads, simply: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

 

As noted above, the Supreme Court overturned Yee’s violent video game law, citing the First Amendment. As pointed out by the Chronicle, the majority opinion read, in part: “Like protected books, plays, and movies, [video games] communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium… Any demonstrated effects [from video games] are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media.”

 

We’ve reached out to both State Senator Yee and Senator Murphy for comment.

 

 

 

[BwareDWare94 723]

Well, it should be a punishable crime to buy an incessantly violent video game for a minor, just like it is to buy them cigarettes or beer/liquor. But should there be any limit on what can be put into them? God no.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Well, it should be a punishable crime to buy an incessantly violent video game for a minor, just like it is to buy them cigarettes or beer/liquor. But should there be any limit on what can be put into them? God no.

 

Hell no it should not.

 

Just think this through for a minute. What you are doing is assigning an arbitrary age limit on when a kid can view certain materials. (By the way, should it also be a crime to purchase a ticket to an R-rated movie for a minor?) Every single child is different and matures differently. Some children should never play an M-rated game at all. Some can handle it just fine. It should be up to the parent to make that parenting decision. What you are doing is glossing over parental responsibility and attempting to punish everyone just so that those people who make bad decisions are covered.

 

Not to mention, it would be against the 1st Amendment as clearly laid out by the Supreme Court.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That senator from California.. Wow. It's about the gamers incessant need for violence? Fuck you, guy.

[Vin+ 3,121]

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/30/tennessee-senator-calls-games-a-bigger-problem-than-guns

Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander has called video games “a bigger problem than guns.” Speaking on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown, Alexander condemned games but said he doesn’t expect anti-gun or game bills to catch on due to the First and Second Amendments.

 

"I'm going to wait and see on all of these bills," Alexander said. "I think video games is a bigger problem than guns, because video games affect people. But the First Amendment limits what we can do about video games and the Second Amendment to the Constitution limits what we can do about guns. So the details matter to me. I'm going to be skeptical of any of these proposals and examine them in light of the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

 

Alexander’s appearance coincides with a Senate hearing today discussing gun violence in the United States. This is one of many instances of video games entering into the debate in recent weeks, following President Obama asking congress to commission a study on violent games and a proposed bill from West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller.

 

Alexander’s comments follow video game condemnations from other politicians recently, including Senators Leland Yee and Chris Murphy last week and Missouri representative Diane Franklin earlier this month.

 

Source: GI.biz

 

[Thanatos 2,847]

"I think video games is a bigger problem than guns, because video games affect people

 

Video games *is* a bigger problem than guns? Did the Senator graduate middle school?

 

Love his reasoning, too. Geez these guys are such tools sometimes.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Video games *is* a bigger problem than guns? Did the Senator graduate middle school?

 

Love his reasoning, too. Geez these guys are such tools sometimes.

 

Because of how much and how quickly the world has changed over the last 10-20 years, people from older generations are more out of touch with society than they have ever been. In a way it's not their fault. Just think how different it'll be by the time we're old geezers.

[SteelersNation36 128]

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Keep in mind I haven't come out in favor of gun control because I'm not sure it's something I believe in. I've been around guns all my life and shot more of them than I can count so please refrain from attacking me on some kind of "you're an anti-gun nut liberal crazy blah blah blah." I've been thinking on this a little lately and I have a question I'd like to pose as a topic of discussion just for fun.

 

Would you agree or disagree that armed insurrection, a reason many define as the reason for the existence of the 2nd amendment in protecting us from our government, is contradictory (or perhaps anathema) to constitutional government?

 

Would armed insurrection not be a rejection of, rather than a defense of, the constitution? I suppose you could argue either way with this but on the one hand, considering the structure of our Constitution it would appear the Framers would rather the citizens vote those violating the Constitution out of office. Yes, many of them made comments regarding the rights of citizens to take up arms against their government but try looking at those kinds of opinions in the context of that era: Prior to the 1800 general election there had never in the history of mankind been a peaceful transfer of power of this magnitude. So I suppose it was a widely held belief at that time that not only were armed insurrections frequent but frequently necessary. Contained specifically to the majority of contemporary democracies today that's clearly not the case anymore.

 

Now, on the other hand...People do feel like the Constitution is violated frequently. Some also don't, but that's probably a debate for another day. Anyway, at what point do you revolt if it's been violated? There's certainly no legality of armed insurrection held in the Constitution, so by revolting are you violating the very document you're upset is being violated? There are plenty of quotes from the Founders on the right to bear arms, etc. but if it's not in the Constitution then what makes it acceptable? If the Framers thought it was truly necessary, why isn't that right given to us explicitly? Is the contradiction here making any sense here? Sorry if that's a confusing paragraph.

 

Anyway...I thought this could be a fun discussion. I've been trying to see things in a different light lately to understand every possible viewpoint of political beliefs. This question came to me a couple of nights ago and I've been trying since to put it into words so I apologize if I'm confusing anyone.

 

Anyway...thoughts?

[OSUViking 505]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is

wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts

they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,

it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not

warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of

resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as

to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost

in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from

time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is its natural manure."

 

- The Great Thomas Jefferson

 

 

That being said, I believe in our right to overthrow a government if it goes against the will of the people. At what point we have the right to rebel, I'm not sure. People are taking it over the top with threatening to rebel over guns and the previous election, however. I would probably draw the line if the NDAA recently signed into law eventually starts to take over our constitutional rights of being innocent until proven guilty and to a fair and just trial. However, I can almost assure everyone here that short of a miracle a revolt is unlikely to succeed. I have a hard time believing the majority of the military would actually follow orders to engage their population once more, but I think enough of the military would stay loyal to the government and not to the just cause of liberty (don't take that as sarcasm I'm being serious) to prevent a revolution from succeeding. HOWEVER, we need to retain the right to revolt against tyranny, even if it won't work. The threat of an insanely armed and eccentric population revolting is something that would probably scare the government into submitting to the will of the people.

[BwareDWare94 723]

In reply to Phail:

 

Definitely a contradiction of our Constitution to partake in an armed insurrection. The very reason that we believe (and I like to think the founders believed) that we have the right to own guns is because we are not openly violent with them. To rebel against our government as armed individuals willing to pull a trigger with violent intent would be an absolute contradiction of our beliefs. The irony would be remarkably hilarious.