Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

NRA vs Videogames?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 252 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:15:47 PM PST
Voice of god says:
I'd like to keep 12 year olds from playing Call of Duty, but my reasons have nothing to do with violence.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:16:21 PM PST
FOGE says:
It motivates me to finish what I start.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 12:18:37 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:18:54 PM PST
Keller says:
This sounds kind of silly, but I wish those who blamed videogames actually knew something about them. I get even more annoyed when I hear somebody blaming videogames and it is blatantly obvious they have zero idea of what they are talking about. I remember once a person was talking about how Resident Evil had hookers. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:24:34 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:25:59 PM PST
Voice of god says:
Japan bans all weapons for civilians other than shotguns and rifles for sportsmen, who have jump through a ton of hoops to get a license. No handguns, no assault weapons.

They have fewer gun-related homicides in a year than we had at an elementary school in one day.

I'm a fan of banning handguns, too, but banning assault weapons (along with extended magazines, full-auto mod kits, and the gun show loophole) seems like a reasonable compromise that even gun-as-self-defense advocates could get behind. At least these should be, though for whatever reason they aren't. After all, they're not called defense weapons.

Do we really need something that serves no purpose other than to kill many people quickly? That has no practical use in civilian life other than to go on a killing spree?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:30:19 PM PST
FOGE says:
The founding fathers created the second amendment as the right to bear arms. Not to bear some arms that the Government decides is okay. The second amendment is there in case the government fails to follow the first amendment.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:30:29 PM PST
DVvM says:
The last country I would want to live in is Japan (for a variety of reasons).

Let's not say "country x should be like country y" since you can't just turn one culture into another.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:30:53 PM PST
Anthony says:
in fairness, there is a part in the second RE movie where mike epps nails a zombie hooker with his car and yells out "GTA Mother****er!". though that might be giving them a bit too much credit.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:31:19 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:33:25 PM PST
Keller says:
Yeah, but guns were a lot different back then. Who knows what the founding fathers would think about today's guns. The point of the constitiution is the living document idea, it can change with the times rather than being written in stone. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying a ban is the right direction, but rather saying I couldn't give a crap less about what people thought 200 years ago. Our founding fathers also owned slaves and people had to own land to vote, that and be male. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:32:02 PM PST
FOGE says:
Man! I hope you did some stretching before reaching that far.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:32:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:33:03 PM PST
FOGE says:
I think they were aware that guns would advance in technology. They had done so for about 1000 years. They would probably think the same thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:32:48 PM PST
Anthony says:
and the argument against that is that the military has the same, or better, guns than civillians have now.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:33:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:36:33 PM PST
DVvM says:
I honestly don't think they'd have an issue with the sorts of guns that are legal for civilians to own in this day and age.

The sorts of weapons that are not legal for civilians in any circumstances are more appropriately titled "ordnance" than "arms", in late 18th century parlance. Nobody thinks Thomas Jefferson thought you should be able to own a bazooka (since he didn't think you should be able to have a cannon either.)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:33:38 PM PST
Anthony says:
lol, honestly, the thought just occurred to me when trying to get into their tiny little minds.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 12:34:20 PM PST
D says:
Who the @!#$ played Splatterhouse?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:35:19 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:37:58 PM PST
Keller says:
Honestly, I would imagine NOBODY in the 1700's could even remotely picture the type of guns we have today.

Anthony, sure the government has the same guns. They also have nukes, tomahawk missles, planes, tanks, etc. Do we have a right to counter those weapons with civilians being able to own them? Just playing devil's advocate here. Once again I am not saying I am for a ban, but holding onto what people thought 200 years ago seems silly to me at best.

As mentioned earlier our fathers owned slaves and only white males who owned property could vote. The constitiution isn't written in stone for a reason. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:37:23 PM PST
Anthony says:
what civillian would be able to AFFORD the weapons you mentioned?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:37:29 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:37:44 PM PST
FOGE says:
Agreed, but they expected guns to get better, even if they did not know exactly how. They want civilians to be armed similar to the military. The government should fear its people, for then you have liberty. But if the people fear the government, then their is tyranny.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:38:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:38:42 PM PST
Keller says:
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Waltons, Lebron James? I have no idea how much a tomahawk missile costs. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:39:38 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:40:48 PM PST
DVvM says:
I'm pretty sure all sorts of people in the 1700s could imagine non-muzzle loading guns, and possibly even semi-automatic weapons.

Since things like "repeating crossbows" date back to the third century BC, so "a gun that chambers the next round without you having to manually insert the powder and the ball" couldn't have been wholly unthinkable in the 1800s.

I don't think anybody is saying that "we need to make more types of weapons legal". So arming the populace with tanks isn't really worth suggesting (and again, tanks are ordnance not arms, there is no right to have and bear ordnance, nor should there be.)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:40:03 PM PST
And government studies have shown that Mature video games are consistently the hardest form of media for minors to get.

I would argue no one should get their hands on CoD, but let's not go over that again.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:40:12 PM PST
DVvM says:
About $500k -$1.4m each.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 12:40:36 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 12:41:55 PM PST
Keller says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

A tomahawk missile costs 1.4 million, a great many Americans could afford one with ease. Just sayin, arming our civilians like they are the military in today's age makes no sense to me. Clearly there needs to be a line. Heck pretty much every professional athelete in the US could afford one, many pornstars could too. :)

Just so we are clear, I am not saying I am in favor of a gun ban, just playing devil's advocate. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:42:37 PM PST
FOGE says:
Nuke $50,000,000
Tomahawk Missile $500,000+
F-22 Raptor $200,000,000
M-1 Abrams Tank $44,800,000
CVN-78 Class Aircraft Carrier $9,780,000,000 - aircraft not included.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:43:18 PM PST
Keller says:
Wow, many people literally could afford to build their own army. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 12:43:37 PM PST
Anthony says:
and i think we're pretty much at that line right now.
[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
 



Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

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