Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

NRA vs Videogames?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 252 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:43:50 PM PST
FOGE says:
I was amazed at how cheap a nuke was... well, relatively cheap.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:44:23 PM PST
DVvM says:
"People willing to fight and die for you" are awfully expensive, though.

These are also the prices that the government pays for these things. Since you're not able to legally buy them as a civilian, they will cost more.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:45:16 PM PST
FOGE says:
PMCs pay ex soldiers to fight for them though. Private civilians literally do buy their own army in todays age.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:45:44 PM PST
DVvM says:
They're not for sale at that price.

Were you to provide a sufficiency of fissible materials, probably any 4-5 physics PhDs in the world could build you a fission bomb. It's just that various world governments make it really hard to get your hands on that stuff (with good reason!)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:45:44 PM PST
Carlito says:
You realize our Fore Fathers fought a revolution with then military grade weapons to form our country, right? The 'sense' is in that statement but I'll let you find it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:47:21 PM PST
Anthony says:
i remember reading somewhere that the Waltons have their own private little compound somewhere surrounded by armed guards and accessible only by helicopter.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 12:49:43 PM PST
People, we're losing perspective here. I'm a gun owner, and I play games. Neither is to blame for what happened. What happened was a mentally ill person got a hold of things he should have had no business having and went crazy with it. Why hasn't any media really looked at what the cause is, known as dealing with insane or 'challenged' people. I don't know what can be done, but mental health is the root cause for this insanity.

It's too easy to throw around fault and ignore the basic issue.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:52:19 PM PST
Keller says:
Sure, but we have over 100 billionaries in this country. Many could afford those items. Kind of a scary thought.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:53:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:55:54 PM PST
Voice of god says:
I'm sorry to tell you this, but you have lost the arms race with the government. They can destroy the entire world five times, and that's just with the nuclear arsenal. An AR-15 in your bedroom closet isn't going to help, even in the incredibly unlikely event that the Obama comes for your printing press.

We as a society already restrict which arms people are allowed to bear -- you can't have a rocket launcher, or a tank, or a nuclear bomb. We also restrict who is allowed to even own firearms. I think it's fair to say that most reasonable people in this society are already okay with not allowing absolutely everyone to have every kind of weapon. It's just a question of where the line is drawn.

I say a good place for the line excludes weapons that serve no purpose other than to kill many people quickly, since there is no upside to allowing them and plenty of downside. If there's a rational argument to the contrary, I'd love to hear it, but bear in mind that I do not consider Red Dawn a valid argument.

Edit: A bit ninja'd, but I wrote a pretty similar post in the politics forum a few days ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:56:13 PM PST
DVvM says:
Where are they going to get them though? There's no store that sells tomahawks missiles and the amount that government contractors would stand to lose if they sold them to you almost certainly exceeds the profit made on whatever missiles they sold you.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:58:09 PM PST
DVvM says:
I think the thing that a lot of people are missing here is that you don't need to match an enemy technologically in a pitched battle in order to dissuade them.

Most wars post 1950 demonstrate this pretty well.

The "you can't have every kind of weapon there is" was codified in 1791 when the Second Amendment said "arms" not "arms and ordnance".

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:58:23 PM PST
Allow me to preface this with it's my belief that there is no legit reason to own AR's.

There are a couple of reasons, the exact same thing that the forefathers put that right in there for in the first place. An educated person knows that an assault rifle won't stand up to a tank, but it is an excellent way of attempting to fight off enemies that already have firepower superiority.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:58:42 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:59:51 PM PST
Kr155 says:
The founding fathers wanted the people to be allowed to have arms to act as a counter balance to the governments weapons. its hard to say what they would say about this in a world of tanks jets and nuclear weapons. but i do believe they would still want us to be able to own guns.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:01:06 PM PST
DVvM says:
Can we define "assault rifle" in this context? I think people mean different things when they say that.

I mean, circumstances in which you're allowed to own automatic or burst fire weapons as a U.S. Civilian are few and far between, but what is the practical difference between a semi-automatic rifle dressed up to look like a "badass military gun" and a semi-automatic rifle of the same calibre that looks like this: http://i.walmart.com/i/p/00/80/67/03/03/0080670303041_500X500.jpg

Each kills you just as dead, just as effectively.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:01:15 PM PST
Well, that was what the court decided in a 5-4 decision in 2008.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:02:13 PM PST
Voice of god says:
If we don't need to match them technologically, then why do we need assault weapons?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:03:09 PM PST
Keller says:
Maybe, maybe not. I think my point is nobody actually knows what the founding fathers would think, hence it shouldn't be used in this discussion. It is nothing more than speculation. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:03:50 PM PST
DVvM says:
Every decision upholding Roe v. Wade since the 80s has been 5-4. It's not like a 5-4 ruling is any different, legally standing, than a 9-0 ruling.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 1:04:40 PM PST
Frank says:
All the jets and tanks of the mighty US military could not break a rabble armed with AKs and improvised explosives. Modern weapons won't render small arms obsolete. You still have to kill the guy on the ground in order to subdue/conquer anything.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:05:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 1:08:06 PM PST
DVvM says:
Define "assault weapon" first.

I would not call any semi-automatic weapon an "assault weapon" and the purchase and sale of fully automatic weapons is already fairly well regulated.

I mean, you can put a pistol grip, bayonet mount, an extended magazine, and a flash suppressor on a semi-automatic rifle and it doesn't make it meaningfully better at killing you than a rifle of the same calibre without those things. The part you're worried about is the part the bullet comes out of.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:05:58 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 1:08:17 PM PST
Keller says:
I have to completely disagree with that. The US, if they really wanted too, could bomb the entire rabble within seconds. They wouldn't know what hit them, literally. The rest of the populatin would cave and give up resistance. The idea of civilians fighting the government seems like folly to me. It just isn't 1700 anymore. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:07:11 PM PST
I did and I loooooooved it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:09:03 PM PST
All I'm saying is the second amendment that people are using as "the intentions of the forefathers" is really the interpretation of a slim majority of the supreme court from 4 years ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:10:08 PM PST
In no way does the way that a weapon appear affect it's classification. I define an assault rifle as one capable of firing as fully automatic, even if it's only capable of it in 3-round bursts. I am aware that it isn't difficult to a trained and outfitted individual to modify many firearms to be fully auto, and that's why it would be difficult to enforce.

As to each killing you just as dead, so does a sharp stick.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:12:48 PM PST
Carlito says:
So...just so I have your argument correct, the 2nd Amendment, pertaining to the right to bare arms, should be amended because you're a quitter?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Video Games forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  252
Initial post:  Dec 21, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 3, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions