Surprise! Guns Not enough for Chuckie Speech next


PDA






Master Blaster
June 21, 2005, 09:19 AM
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A new video game which lets players join crime gangs and kill police officers has become the target of a proposed boycott by a U.S. Senator.



Sen. Charles Schumer , a Democrat from New York, said the "cop killer" video game, called "25 to Life," had hit an "all-time low" and discouraged the sale and distribution of the title, due out this summer.

"'25 to Life' makes 'Grand Theft Auto' look like 'Romper Room'," Schumer said on Monday in comments e-mailed by a spokeswoman. The blockbuster video game series "Grand Theft Auto" from Take-Two Interactive (Nasdaq:TTWO - news) is frequently criticized for its violence.

"Romper Room" is a popular U.S. children's television show.

The new video game lets players "be the law" or "break the law," taking the side of police or thugs in running gun battles through a grimy urban landscape.

The criminals use human shields in fights, while police call in special weapons and tactics units. The title refers to the length of a jail sentence.

A spokesman for game maker Eidos, which was recently acquired by SCi Entertainment (SEG.L), declined comment.

Schumer also urged game console makers Microsoft Corp.(Nasdaq:MSFT - news) and Sony Corp. (6758.T) to end their licensing agreements with Eidos.

"The last thing we need here in New York is to reinforce a destructive culture of violence and disrespect for the law. Little Johnny should be learning how to read, not how to kill cops," Schumer said in separate comments.

His statements echo persistent and so far unsuccessful calls from groups of lawmakers, who charge that violent video games promote similar behavior in children.

Violent titles are a lightning rod for the video game industry, whose $10 billion in annual U.S. sales rival Hollywood's movie box office receipts.

As a national debate rages over whether the industry should be left to regulate itself, lawmakers from several states want to make sales of violent video games to minors illegal -- efforts courts have rebuffed saying that the games are protected by laws that apply to creative expression.

Meanwhile, some fans of the controversial games describe them as scathing critiques of American society.

Based on sales, the fans of violent video games are legion.

Take-Two's "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," the latest installment in the series, was released in October 2004 and quickly became a best-seller.

That game was harshly criticized for allowing players to do such things as running pedestrians down with a car and killing prostitutes or police.

Retailers and console makers tread lightly when the subject is violent games.

" Xbox appeals to a broad audience of game players and, like all forms of entertainment, not every game is appropriate for every player," a spokeswoman for the unit that oversees Microsoft's Xbox game player said in a statement on Monday.

A Sony spokeswoman was not available for comment.

"25 to Life" carries an "M" rating -- for those 17 and older -- from the Entertainment Software Rating Board for blood and gore, intense violence, sexual themes, strong language and drug references, according to the Eidos Web site.

Other titles from Eidos include "Laura Croft Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness" and "101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure." (Additional reporting by Franklin Paul

"liberals Must control everything because ordinary folks like you and me are not intelligent enough or responsible enough" Where will it end? I'm sure someone could find something in any video game objectionable. Freedom of speech is not in the Bill of Rights to protect popular speech.

If you enjoyed reading about "Surprise! Guns Not enough for Chuckie Speech next" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
June 21, 2005, 09:58 AM
[think twice, post once]

Just like to say for the record that I despise Chuckie.

KriegHund
June 21, 2005, 10:03 AM
What a...tool.

Chuck, i despise and think your existence is an insult to humanity, and ruins my poor poor childrens fragile minds. I demand you be put to death, but first you need to pay me 2 billion dollars.

If i dont want the game..guess what! I wont buy it!

Hmmmmm....

me and all my friends think that tele-tubbies is a pretty retarded show and encourages the fantasy related side of my childs mind. You should ban it.

:banghead:

Third_Rail
June 21, 2005, 10:05 AM
So... it's a video game of "Cops and Robbers"? Where the heck is the harm, Chuckie?!

Henry Bowman
June 21, 2005, 10:34 AM
I bet if someone made a video game that allowed the player to stalk and kill characters who looked like anti-gun politicians he would complain about that too. :eek: Wouldn't be very "High Road," but probably not low enough for the ACLU to defend on 1A basis.

foghornl
June 21, 2005, 10:47 AM
If "UpChuck The Schmuck" Schumer is against it, I'm gonna buy it! ! !!

;) :evil: ;) :evil:

armoredman
June 21, 2005, 10:55 AM
Ban Teletubbies AND the Wiggles!
UpChuckie can bite my posterior - I don't have the game, or the box, or any desire for either. Banning it is as stupid as any other idea he's stolen, original thought not being his forte...

CentralTexas
June 21, 2005, 11:22 AM
"I bet if someone made a video game that allowed the player to stalk and kill characters who looked like anti-gun politicians he would complain about that too"

Ha, that would get me to by a playstation! ;)
CT

RealGun
June 21, 2005, 11:28 AM
He has a very valid concern in my opinion, but he will have to figure out how doing anything about it would be legal and constitutional. First I think that there would need to be credible studies of the psychological effects on users of these games. If the game was "Kill the Christian" or "The Assassin" or "Blow up the Infidel", I think the point would be made very quickly. The question is really whether it's "okay" to hate policemen or the "establishment" in general and to be encouraged to rehearse that behavior in a game. Society has an interest here. I don't believe rights are intended to enable barbaric regressions in our behavior.

I believe we already know that television and movies significantly influence behavior. At least, I think I would have an "adults only" game rating controlling how this stuff is distributed. The final argument of parental control, freedom of choice for adults, has been used before, and I think it is valid.

That said, I think Chuck Schumer has little credibility here, and rightfully so. It is not so easy to be objective about anything he proposes.

I would also expect leaders of black communities or any culture that spawns gang violence to step forward and express concerns about these endemic hatreds and violent behaviors. The quality of succeeding generations is to a great extent their responsibility.

MechAg94
June 21, 2005, 12:40 PM
So what about if the game was about SWAT team guys that raid houses and shoot bad guys? :)

Zundfolge
June 21, 2005, 12:56 PM
I've got two words for Chuck Schumer; Carl Schaumberg :evil:

Justin
June 21, 2005, 01:04 PM
RealGun- Quite frankly I don't care what the content of a video game is. It's a game. Even as a child, I have to admit to being terribly irritated with adults who couldn't seem to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

At least, I think I would have an "adults only" game rating controlling how this stuff is distributed. ESRB Ratings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB)


As for Charles Schumer, well...

Lone_Gunman
June 21, 2005, 01:14 PM
I agree with Shumer on this issue. He is not calling for a legislative ban, or any new law, just asking for voluntary efforts to curb sale of this item. He is entitled to his opinion, and as a prominent Senator certainly has a platform for expression

There is a big difference between a legislator expressing a personal opinion, and trying to pass a new law.

I would be against legally banning this game. It should be protected by the first amendment, but have no problem with our leaders discouraging sales.

Zundfolge
June 21, 2005, 01:14 PM
If the game was "Kill the Christian" or "The Assassin" or "Blow up the Infidel", I think the point would be made very quickly.

THIS (http://www.destroyallhumansgame.com/globe.php) is the next video game I'm going to buy ... so what's your point?

captain obvious
June 21, 2005, 01:25 PM
I've really cut down on things like this - I don't have a television in my house at college, don't use my cell phone anymore, but...

...now I HAVE to buy this game :evil:

RavenVT100
June 21, 2005, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by RealGun:

He has a very valid concern in my opinion, but he will have to figure out how doing anything about it would be legal and constitutional. First I think that there would need to be credible studies of the psychological effects on users of these games. If the game was "Kill the Christian" or "The Assassin" or "Blow up the Infidel", I think the point would be made very quickly. The question is really whether it's "okay" to hate policemen or the "establishment" in general and to be encouraged to rehearse that behavior in a game. Society has an interest here. I don't believe rights are intended to enable barbaric regressions in our behavior.

What's your point? The anti-gun lobby doesn't believe rights are intended to enable people to own guns, just because. And playing a game is hardly what you could consider barbaric behavior. The adrenaline isn't there, the fight/flight component isn't there, and none of the telltale factors of being in a real fight are there. It's not the same thing.

"Common good," "for the children," "in the interest of society"-- all of these are talking points that we hear so often from the anti-gun crowd that I'm surprised you'd use them in a similar context. Efforts to ban violent video games are cut from the same cloth as efforts to ban guns. One group finds something politically incorrect and or offensive (i.e. gun ownership) and attempts to use the power of the state to enforce its version of political correctness and social policy on everyone. And yet no one is forcing anyone to play these games or own guns.

Anyway, it looks like you agree with me here. I just wanted to re-iterate this. It all comes down to personal responsibility and not letting your kids use entertainment media that is unsuitable for their age. I believe that we can do this without having to pay legislators to do it for us.

RealGun
June 21, 2005, 01:43 PM
"Common good," "for the children," "in the interest of society"-- all of these are talking points that we hear so often from the anti-gun crowd that I'm surprised you'd use them in a similar context.

I will never say that rights are unconditional. I don't think it is intelligent to do so. It is hard to get past the notion that one is not free to yell "fire!" in a theater, freedom of speech and all that. The same concept of society's interest could apply in other contexts. The legislatures and courts are supposed to decide such questions. Whether or not they can be trusted to provide decisions that make sense is another problem.

Beethoven
June 21, 2005, 02:06 PM
I demand that chuck schumer, as MY employee, show me precisely where the Constitution gives him the authority to do or say ANYTHING related to video games.

Zundfolge
June 21, 2005, 03:10 PM
He is not calling for a legislative ban, or any new law, just asking for voluntary efforts to curb sale of this item.

With a combination of the ESRB ratings and the fact that WalMart (the biggest seller of video games on the planet) doesn't sell "objectionable" games, these "voluntary efforts" are already in place.

Chuckie is just throwing his weight around as a Senator ... if he's not calling for a law then he needs to STFU. Its not his job to "express himself" or share his opinion, its his job to make laws (and as such it is right for us to assume that when he expresses himself or shares his opinion that a new law is coming next).

Chuckie has demonstrated that he has no tolerance for us serfs living free, so why would we assume his intentions here are benign?

Lone_Gunman
June 21, 2005, 03:16 PM
I don't assume his intentions are benign. However, speaking his mind is his right. Just like it is my right and your right.

Zundfolge
June 21, 2005, 04:06 PM
I don't assume his intentions are benign. However, speaking his mind is his right. Just like it is my right and your right.

And just like its my right to respond to him exercising his right.


However in addition to his right to speak his mind, he also has an obligation to reign it in when he's not discussing public policy lest his words be misconstrued as a discussion of public policy.

And I have the right to point that out :D

And he has the right to ignore me.

Master Blaster
June 21, 2005, 04:09 PM
I believe we already know that television and movies significantly influence behavior.

Really????? TV influences how you behave????????, even my 6 and 8 year olds can tell that TV is fantasy that nothing they see or hear there is to be taken as real.
I taught them that, and they have human brains which are smart enough to see the difference between reality and the entertainment they see on TV even at ages 6 and 8. My 6 yearold son and I play bang shoot em up games in the arcade, we play army in the house and the yard with toy guns and toy grenades. When we go to the range he knows that his .22lr is a real gun and you cant just shoot all around like you do in a video game, because real guns kill people for real. He is 6 he KNOWS THIS.

You know that there is a lawsuit being filed on behalf of 3 police officers shot, 2 killed, by a 16 yearold miscreant after he had been playing Grand Theft Auto. Even the 16 year old knew if he took a police officer's gun and shot him with it he would die for real. The Lawyer is claiming that the game trained him to kill cops so its not really his fault and they are suing the game manufacturer Walmart and the Game Stop becuase this turd played the game and then went on a rampage for real. Thats why the Chukster is flappin' his pie hole, he's rolling in the blood so he and his fellow facists in the congress can restrict and control, what we do, see, and hear.

I dont want Chukiecrapmaster or the other side of the aisle, those Christian conservatives, deciding what books we can read, video games we can play, or GUNS we can own.

Ektarr
June 21, 2005, 04:14 PM
RealGun: "I will never say that rights are unconditional. I don't think it is intelligent to do so."

Sorry, but I disagree. Rights, by their nature, must be unconditional or they're not Rights. Suppose someone said you have the Right to live, provided you behave appropriately. The person making the decision as to the 'appropriate' condition now holds the cards to your being able to exercise your 'right' to life. Would you relinquish your authority over your Rights? Should anyone?

Not everyone should have a gun. Not everyone should have a driver's license...or publish their ideas...or be permitted to procreate! But it is their Right to do so, and Rights are like dominoes. Take care of which ones we choose to flick over.

Ektarr says: "Everyone's allowed to piss on their own shoes." Just please don't piss on mine.

Master Blaster
June 21, 2005, 04:28 PM
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. Feb 15, 2005 A lawsuit claims the video game "Grand Theft Auto" led a teenager to shoot two police officers and a dispatcher to death in 2003, mirroring violent acts depicted in the popular game.

The suit announced Tuesday seeks damages from the game's manufacturers and two stores that allegedly sold it to Devin Thompson, now 18.

An attorney for relatives of two of the victims said Thompson, who is charged with murder, had played the video game repeatedly.
Top Stories



Thompson is accused of killing the three men in June 2003 after being brought to the Fayette police station on suspicion of driving a stolen car. Thompson allegedly grabbed one of the officer's guns, shot him and the other two, then fled in a patrol car.

The suit alleges Thompson purchased "Grand Theft Auto III" at the Gamestop in Jasper and "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" at the Jasper Wal-Mart when he was under 17. The games, which depict police killings and other acts of violence, are rated M, meaning they are appropriate for those 17 or older.

"What has happened in Alabama is that four companies participated in the training of Devin to kill three men," attorney Jack Thompson told The Tuscaloosa News, which reported the suit's filing.

Named in the suit are Wal-Mart Stores and Gamestop along with Take-Two Interactive Software, the manufacturer of the games, and Sony Computer Entertainment, the maker of the PlayStation 2.

Messages left for officials of three of the companies were not immediately returned. There was no answer at the listing for Gamestop in Grapevine, Texas.

At a December hearing, authorities said Devin Thompson, when he was apprehended, told officers, "Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime."

TimRB
June 21, 2005, 04:33 PM
"I demand that chuck schumer, as MY employee, show me precisely where the Constitution gives him the authority to do or say ANYTHING related to video games."

Would that be the part about "freedom of speech"?

Tim

TrybalRage
June 21, 2005, 04:39 PM
Perhaps he should go after the people giving 'Little Johnny' the 50 bucks to buy this game. Kid aint earning it on his own.

I'm gonna buy 2 copies just to piss this guy off.

Otherguy Overby
June 21, 2005, 05:30 PM
Without first person shooters, we probably wouldn't have video games.

Sheesh, they were complaining about the violence in Doom.

Now, since schmuckie doesn't like it I want it.

I wonder if there are extra points for shooting coffee cans...

Standing Wolf
June 21, 2005, 07:14 PM
The new video game lets players "be the law" or "break the law," taking the side of police or thugs in running gun battles through a grimy urban landscape.

Now, what was it the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party were screeching about the word "choice"? I wish I could remember.

gm
June 21, 2005, 08:01 PM
I bet chuckie goes home at night,pulls the blinds,locks the doors and pops in a copy and plays it himself...in fact he probably invites a few of his antigunner pals over for a match. Hes probably that guy everyone beats up on in those online games that smarts off to members of his own team.


even my son knows the difference between a game, a scifi movie and reality. oh well, just a way to find deeper pockets to pay for all the problems today. I really wish someone would walk up to chuckie and shake his hand,thank him for being himself and tell him to just shut up.

romulus
June 21, 2005, 08:09 PM
I never thought I'd stick up for Schumer, but I laud him for coming out against this execrable crap peddled on a bovine clientele. I actually see his criticism of this dyseducational mind-numbing pap as an obligation.

Kudos, Upchuck!

Dan from MI
June 22, 2005, 02:30 AM
Chuckie hates it? I may have to buy it then to go with my collection of Vice City, San Andreas, and The Getaway.

I didn't even know about the game until now.

mercedesrules
June 22, 2005, 02:46 AM
The question is really whether it's "okay" to hate policemen or the "establishment" in general and to be encouraged to rehearse that behavior in a game.
And your answer is?

Master Blaster
June 22, 2005, 10:12 AM
Rights are Unconditional, or they are not rights.

BUT that does not mean that exercising those rights in a way that harms others is without CONSEQUENCES.

YOU are responsible for exercising your rights in a RESPONSIBLE and legal manner. That is what I believe, that is what the USA stands for.

Chukie and Company, believe that people are not capable of exercising their rights in a responsible manner, So they pass laws that effect everyone, rather than punnishing those who misuse their rights. And passing those laws to punnish everyone for the misdeads of the few is wrong and unconstitutional. Gun control is a prime example.

Remember its not about Guns or Video games its about:

CONTROL

Justin
June 22, 2005, 11:40 AM
I bet chuckie goes home at night,pulls the blinds,locks the doors and pops in a copy and plays it himself...in fact he probably invites a few of his antigunner pals over for a match. Hes probably that guy everyone beats up on in those online games that smarts off to members of his own team.
Doubtful. Afterall, why engage in a simulation of being a thug when it's already your fulltime job.

I never thought I'd stick up for Schumer, but I laud him for coming out against this execrable crap peddled on a bovine clientele. I actually see his criticism of this dyseducational mind-numbing pap as an obligation.

Kudos, Upchuck! Romulus, this is probably one of the most elitist things I've read all week. It looks as if you're assuming that the majority of people are far to stupid to actually make a decision on their own about something as trivial as a video game. Use of questionable portmanteaus aside, are we to assume that it should be mandated that all entertainment contain educational content?

RealGun
June 22, 2005, 11:59 AM
Rights are Unconditional, or they are not rights.

Since none of your rights are unconditional, I guess you don't have any. Fantasy and reality are different.

Perceived rights that are not legally guaranteed and for which no one fights are hardly worth talking about.

How do you explain that the US is the only place with supposed RKBA (silent or resistant courts), and yet the US does not criticize other countries for prohibiting guns, even big time allies like the UK, Canada, and Australia. They harass other countries about human rights but never mention gun ownership. The US authorities also do not recommend gun ownership in constitutions of new "democracies" (see Iraq). The US also does not openly condemn the UN for advocating gun bans.

Personally I think of that as hypocrisy, but it is very real and routine. Everyone looks the other way, except perhaps John Bolton.

rick_reno
June 22, 2005, 12:08 PM
I agree with Shumer on this issue. He is not calling for a legislative ban, or any new law, just asking for voluntary efforts to curb sale of this item. He is entitled to his opinion, and as a prominent Senator certainly has a platform for expression

I agree with Lone Gunman on this one - he can speak his mind. You might not like what he says, but I'd bet he doesn't like what we say much of the time either.

T. Bracker
June 22, 2005, 12:54 PM
While I am not in favor of censorship of free speech, it is certainly Schumer's right to voice his opinion. Do they play for the camera and politics, most certainly.

I do think that the games and other associated garbage contribute (not cause) to the increasing coarseness and dumbing down of our society. Not everyone makes "informed decisions" about what they or their children watch or play on the video.

Justin
June 22, 2005, 01:08 PM
So someone should be appointed to make those decisions for them?

Who?
You, me, Chuck Schumer?

Asinine. In any society where freedom is more than just a buzzword people should be allowed to make their own mistakes, waste their freetime as they see fit, and take the responsibility for it.

I find it utterly pathetic that on a web forum where the vast majority of the membership openly cherish and defend their right to bear arms so many are happy to ally themselves with the likes of Chuck Schumer when it comes to a freedom they either don't care about or find distasteful.

Not only is this utter hypocrisy, it is one of the main ingredients in the recipe for the disintegration of all individual human rights.

Beethoven
June 22, 2005, 01:30 PM
So someone should be appointed to make those decisions for them?

Who?
You, me, Chuck Schumer?

Asinine. In any society where freedom is more than just a buzzword people should be allowed to make their own mistakes, waste their freetime as they see fit, and take the responsibility for it.

I find it utterly pathetic that on a web forum where the vast majority of the membership openly cherish and defend their right to bear arms are happy to ally themselves with the likes of Chuck Schumer when it comes to a freedom they either don't care about or find distasteful.

Not only is this utter hypocrisy, it is one of the main ingredients in the recipe for the disintegration of all individual human rights.


Great post!!!!


I still think that spouting off about video games is NOT in schumer's job description, but whatever......

Justin
June 22, 2005, 02:11 PM
He's certainly free to spout off about video games all he wants. In the end all it does is act to reinforce the fact that he's a nanny-state advocating tool.

RealGun
June 22, 2005, 02:22 PM
I would try to account for the difference between impressionable children, for which a parent or a State has responsibility, and the rights of adulthood.

T. Bracker
June 22, 2005, 03:24 PM
Exactly, while an adult is free to make any stupid choice that he or she wishes to, much of this crap is directed toward, marketed for and used by children, regardless of the "over 17" rating. There are certainly some things that should be addressed, at least put into the public forum when they are things that can be detrimental to kids, especially since there are many "parents" that are to self centered, intoxicated or whatever to look out for them. I think it is good that some of this is brought to the forefront for debate. Like here on this forum.

Zundfolge
June 22, 2005, 03:31 PM
...I would try to account for the difference between impressionable children, for which a parent or a State has responsibility...

There's the problem ... the state has no responsibility to take care of the moral/ethical/psychological/value system upbringing of ANY children, let alone mine or yours.


The video game industry regulates itself (via ESRB ratings) just fine without the hand of mama government guiding it or papa government spanking it.

T. Bracker
June 22, 2005, 03:52 PM
I am not suggesting that the govt. raise the children, but on several other threads right now there are topics about kids being arrested or shot for criminal behavior. When there are no parents taking responsibilty, it may truly fall to the state. Obviously a child can't take care of themselves.

mics357
June 22, 2005, 04:07 PM
and remember guns don't kill people pixals do

Lone_Gunman
June 22, 2005, 04:21 PM
the state has no responsibility to take care of the moral/ethical/psychological/value system upbringing of ANY children, let alone mine or yours.

One could make the case that the state itself does have a role in the upbringing of children who are otherwise being neglected. This would fall under the broad and dangerous category of "promoting the general welfare".

However, even if the state has not role in the upbringing of neglected children, society certainly does.

Shumer has a right to express his opinions. He is not calling for anything un-Constitutional this time.

CAS700850
June 22, 2005, 04:50 PM
It's funny. I'm a bit of a gamer, have spent hours playing teh Rainbow Six series and teh Ghost Recon games. Heard all the chatter about Grand Theft Auto, and never cared, because I didn't have much interest in the games. The more they talked about how bad teh games were, the more curious I got, until I broke down and picked up the Double Pack with a gift card. I played Vice City a good bit. Enjoyed the freedom of the game to operate outside a set storyline, but actually got bored with it and stopped playing a while ago.

I won't be buying this game, not because of the "good" Senator's comments, but because I don't want it.

Yeah, it is all about choice, isn't it. And that's mine.

RealGun
June 22, 2005, 05:33 PM
There's the problem ... the state has no responsibility to take care of the moral/ethical/psychological/value system upbringing of ANY children, let alone mine or yours. - Zundfolge

I believe it's a fact that parents need to comply with state educational requirements. You may be right in principle, but I think schools do actually pick up a lot of slack from lack of useful parenting.

T. Bracker
June 22, 2005, 11:17 PM
And the less educated a individual is, the more likely that he/she will be a burden on the rest of society (read taxpayers, prisons etc.) So, trying to make sure that there is at least a hope that some of these neglected kids can obtain something is a societal issue

Fletchette
June 23, 2005, 02:28 AM
So, is there a "Citizens Rebel against the Government to Save the Republic" video game?
:D

Shweboner
June 23, 2005, 06:10 AM
I love how so many gun owners have a anti-gunner way of thinking.

I PERSONALLY disagree with ___________, therefore I support it being done away with.

You may not like the games and in all honesty they are distasteful and dont serve an interest to the community...
BUT it is not for you to decide nor is it up to anyone else to decide if the game should be made available. It already has a rating of "M" just like the parental advisory stickers on CDs... I have been carded buying music!
Its all in place now, parents can look at what their kids listen to or play... its a plainly marked black & white sticker.

And just becasue someone sees violence on v, or participates in it via a videogame DOESNT mean that they are going to do the same when the tv is turned off. Anyone who thinks that the game is responsible, is just plain stupid or lying to themselves and everyone else.

I grew up watching violent, graphic horror and war movies on tv, and when videogames advanced enough to play this kind of stuff... I played them.
Yet I am not a violent person, I have never even thrown the first punch in the few fights I have been in.

It sickens me to hear people talk that way, especially when its gun people saying it.
You are just as bad as the antis who think that picking up a gun makes you a violent killer.
And of course yu say no no no thats not it, People kill people! not guns. a gun is a tool, etc, etc, etc.
But thats exactly what you are saying here. The GAME makes you a killer, the GAME brainwashes you and confuses the line between reality and Fiction. The GAME needs to be banned, for the children. Hell, you should have to show ID and register the game so that the state knows who has these dangerous items.


Seriously. Its all personal responsibility. Kids that are already &^$@#'d up in the head are going to do what they do, regardless of what they play. You never hear about boxing/streetfighting games being blamed for fights, or racing games being held responsible for deaths resulting from illegal street racing... You cant pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to enforce... unless you are one of the many scumbag politicians the run this joint... right or left they make me :barf:

Some of you should rethink your ideas and what is behind them. You may find that you would be better suited selling your guns and growing some pretty white fleece.


Get in Line,

~Brian

If you enjoyed reading about "Surprise! Guns Not enough for Chuckie Speech next" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!