First they take the Second... then the First...

Status
Not open for further replies.

CmdrSlander

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
1,203
Location
Disputed Western Missouri
I'm posting this because it is powerful evidence that our 2nd Amendment rights are only the first thing they are out to destroy, and that once they have them, they'll come for the rest:

The main sponsor on the U.S. legislation that banned many assault weapons in the 1990s is now talking about regulating violent video games in the future.
Speaking to an audience of 500 people in her hometown of San Francisco, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that game publishers need to make voluntary actions to avoid glorifying guns and violence following the Newtown elementary school massacre in December.

She noted that Congress would take action if the industry didn’t do something, according to the Associated Press.

“If Sandy Hook doesn’t [make game publishers change] … then maybe we have to proceed, but that is in the future,” said Feinstein.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/04/senator-feinstein-congress-may-have-to-proceed-with-violent-video-game-regulation/#hDjykiJAo1tZX7co.02

Not content so subvert Amendment II, Feinstein now sets her sights on Amendment I.

This may be construed as off topic, but it isn't. This reflects the political culture of those who want to ban our guns. Its all about control for them. Its easy to gin up political capital for gun bans, but banning video games is beyond the pale even for most liberals, we need to trot this information out when we point to the slippery slope that begins with the destruction of gun rights and ends with total subjugation.

All of our freedoms our in their cross-hairs, I fear this may be it fellas.
 
I would agree with that. If I take your gun(s) away from you, yet I still have mine, what are you gonna do to stop me from doing whatever I want to you? Karate?

As for the video games, these legislators are proving they have gone insane with power and the people who support them have proven that much of this country is asleep and will not awake until it is too late.
 
That's exactly it. Power. Pro 2A, and 1A industries should not throw darts at one another. It's all part of the same mix.
 
If you can take away one of our core rights, then why not the others?
 
Its already regulated. Games are rated for their content just like movies and tv. What she is talking about is banning.
 
The research on violent video games translating to real life violence appears to be about on par with the research on whether or not porn leads to sexual assaults -- there's a lot of it, the consensus is inconclusive, and at least some of the people doing the research have agendas and/or funds from organization with agendas. (And the reality, like porn, is probably something to the effect of the vast majority of adults can be exposed to it with zero issues, some tiny percentage are ticking timebombs anyway, and that percentage is probably somewhat bigger when you talk about juveniles whose minds are still developing.)

Now when DiFi hops into the debate, I suspect it has zero to do with her having an opinion on whether playing games lead to violence and much more to do with the notion which I think the anti-2A's have started picking up on, which is namely that first person shooter games and incredible marketing devices for scary black rifles. Even in households where no one in the last three generations has ever owned a gun and the people there are just too darned genteel to have ever lifted a finger in the scary business of defending this nation, Call of Duty et al are a pipeline directly into their kids that puts them directly in touch with a sort of watered down version of the atavistic, primitive and primal appeal of firearms.* And outside of the most liberal, tofu eating and hemp clothes wearing households, mom and dad are pretty powerless.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed it, but at my LGS the clientel for scary black rifles includes an increasing percentage of guys who seem to be shopping based purely on video games and internet research, to judge by some of the comments I hear them making to each other or the guys behind the counter. With me living in Alaska, it's hard to say if these guys didn't grow up around guns their entire lives and the video game aspect is just nudging them into the scary black weapons direction rather than nudging them from a standing start, but I think there is a market cross over going on.
 
This is a terrible idea from a terrible woman.

We should support it wholeheartedly.

The more crazy legislation passes, the more discredited she and her cronies will become. And I do believe the rage of nerds is a terrifying thing to behold.

But seriously, we need to encourage her to shoot herself in the foot.
 
Here's my current letter.

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I was delighted to hear you speaking in San Francisco of the need to reduce violence in videogames. Noted activist lawyer Jack Thompson has stated that "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, [...] when it comes to kids, it has a demonstrable impact on their behavior and the development of the frontal lobes of their brain."[1] The neurological degradation caused by these murder simulators has poisoned the minds of our youth and is doubtlessly behind the steadily rising tide of violent crime that has gripped this country since the 1993 release of the ultra violent and graphic shooter Doom. It is a well known fact that many mass murderers made use of these games to gain the skills needed for their crimes; indeed, Anders Behring Breivik, the man responsible for the Norway massacre, called the military first person shooter Call of Duty his training tool.

It is imperative that Congress take action to reduce the amount of violent media in this country, through legislative action if necessary. I urge you to stand strong against the fringe groups such as the American Civil Liberties Association who will no doubt scream about how their right to freedom of expression trumps our right to be free of the feat that the games our children play are turning them into psychopaths.

In addition, roleplaying games such as the infamous Dungeons and Dragons, a game with Satanic origins, should be strictly prohibited as it encourages deviant behavior and has been linked to many suicides and murders[2]. These games not only encourage belief in the occult but also encourages violent crime as the game centers around killing other beings and taking their belongings.

Of course, in order to truly be safe from the poisonous effects of violent media, it will also be necessary to restrict the ability of Hollywood to make movies with realistic violence such as Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down. These films do nothing but glorify violence and make it seem attractable to impressionable young minds. Many mass murderers are known to have watched violent films, a correlation which clearly implies a causal relationship.

Violent literature should be restricted as well; some popular books such as the Bible have frightfully violent scenes such as when a Levite's concubine is raped to death and the Levite dismembers the woman's body and scatters her parts through Israal[3]. This is to say nothing of the various accounts of genocide given in the Bible, such as the aftermath of Joshua's victory at Jericho[4]. Needless to say, the Koran is even worse in this matter, as it is the holy book of a violent and bloody religion. Ideally, this sort of literature would be burned and its existence erased from our memories as a means of preventing religious violence, the likes of which America has suffered too much of since the events of 9/11.

If we can control the mind of people by eliminating references to violence in our society via criminalizing violent thoughts (ie, thoughtcrime), then we will be able to effectively reduce violence in our country. This is a key principal in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis[5], which states that thought is language dependent. If a person cannot conceive of a word for an idea or action, he will be unable to perform the act. This is best illustrated in the novel 1984, where the Party seeks to redefine the English language into Newspeak, which is simplified so as to reduce the ability of its users to form complex ideas, and which lacks words necessary for dissent so as to eliminate all thought of resistance to the State.

The effectiveness of such a policy is also evident in the Harry Potter franchise, where the Dark Lord Voldemort makes the saying of his name a taboo. Every utterance of his name results in the detection of the offending wizard by magical sensors, and a gang of enforcers were swiftly dispatched to arrest the criminal. This enabled Voldemort to create an atmosphere of fear and terror that suppressed attempts to instigate violence against him under his rule.

The assault weapons ban you have already proposed is but the first step on the road to a glorious future free from violence. I can only hope that you have the courage to follow it to its final destination.

Sincerely,
####

[1] Drew, James. "Ohio sniper case may put video games on trial." The Blade. Web. 21 Nov. 2004.<http://www.toledoblade.com/frontpage/2004/11/21/Ohio-sniper-case-may-put-video-games-on-trial.html>
[2] Chick, Jack. "Dark Dungeons." Chick Publications, 1984.
[3] New International Version, Judges 19
[4] New International Version, Joshua 6
[5] "The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis." Standford Philosophical Encyclopedia. Standford University. Web. 05 Apr. 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement2.html>
Too much sarcasm? Too little? Too subtle? Not subtle enough?
 
Last edited:
I don't think she would get the sarcasm :(, because it probably sounds too much like what is actually going on in her twisted little mind...
 
to speak to HorseSoldier's #8 post...

I know I'm one of the recent converts to firearms ownership after 4 decades of riding the Blue Marble... 2009 was the year of my first purchase. I didn't grow up in a house with guns. We didn't talk about guns, but then we didn't NOT talk about guns either. I dropped out of "gaming" around the Duke Nukem era, simply because I had better things to waste my time and money on. :D I'm not a walking encylopedia of firearms knowledge, but I at least try to study up on whatever subtopic has tickled my fancy that week. And I try to not be That Guy asking (blatantly) stupid questions* and giving stupid answers when I visit my LGSs. I agree there's probably some form of crossover market going on, especially right now with the OMG GOTTA GET ME SOME GUNS happening because of legislation. How sadly ironic that we could see an uptick in accidents related to legislation (attempts) and people rushing to purchase firearms early in their ownership lifetime.

(*) personally I believe there are almost no stupid questions. Revealing ones ignorance with the intention of educating ones self to remove the ignorance should never be suppressed. although if my son asks me "why?" 17 more times in a row... :D
 
The research on violent video games translating to real life violence appears to be about on par with the research on whether or not porn leads to sexual assaults -- there's a lot of it, the consensus is inconclusive, and at least some of the people doing the research have agendas and/or funds from organization with agendas. (And the reality, like porn, is probably something to the effect of the vast majority of adults can be exposed to it with zero issues, some tiny percentage are ticking timebombs anyway, and that percentage is probably somewhat bigger when you talk about juveniles whose minds are still developing.)

Now when DiFi hops into the debate, I suspect it has zero to do with her having an opinion on whether playing games lead to violence and much more to do with the notion which I think the anti-2A's have started picking up on, which is namely that first person shooter games and incredible marketing devices for scary black rifles. Even in households where no one in the last three generations has ever owned a gun and the people there are just too darned genteel to have ever lifted a finger in the scary business of defending this nation, Call of Duty et al are a pipeline directly into their kids that puts them directly in touch with a sort of watered down version of the atavistic, primitive and primal appeal of firearms.* And outside of the most liberal, tofu eating and hemp clothes wearing households, mom and dad are pretty powerless.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed it, but at my LGS the clientel for scary black rifles includes an increasing percentage of guys who seem to be shopping based purely on video games and internet research, to judge by some of the comments I hear them making to each other or the guys behind the counter. With me living in Alaska, it's hard to say if these guys didn't grow up around guns their entire lives and the video game aspect is just nudging them into the scary black weapons direction rather than nudging them from a standing start, but I think there is a market cross over going on.
I grew up a gamer. It's been with me my entire life. Never once did I think it was ok to Dragon Punch someone in the face or treat an AR like a toy. My daily ingestion on TV included gun toting GI Joe, Transformers, Terminator and Predator movies. The gun that started it for me was a Sig 522. My family has no experience with guns, I did not grow up in that culture. What my family did teach me is the basics of being a person. Right, wrong, respect, humility, responsibility.

When my family found out I owned guns it was a simple be careful with them. Then dad said well you going to take me to the range or what?
 
While this topic is about games, an interesting article crossed Drudge yesterday. It seems that creating a national registry of gun owners/weapons has perked up the ears of the ACLU. They are against it.

This whole debate, including the OP's topic, may have finally caught the attention of the ACLU.. a group that normally ignores the 2nd. But it seems that they are starting to see that an attack on the 2nd is an attack on ALL civil liberties. First, there is the issue that if one civil liberty can be subverted, then it is likely that they can ALL be subverted. This is what they are worried about. But second, there is the issue that the 2nd is what puts weight of punishment by the people behind all of the others. The ACLU does not like this angle, but they are beginning to see the truth of it.
 
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quite because I didn’t deal drugs.

When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.

When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.

Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top