A Right To Bear Virtual Arms? 201
theodp writes "In the world of virtual goods, reports GeekWire's Todd Bishop, it looks like there's no such thing as a Second Amendment. According to a forum post by an Epic Games community manager, a new policy will remove 'gun-like' items from Microsoft's Xbox Live Avatar Marketplace on January 1. The policy reportedly applies to accessories for the avatars that represent Xbox Live users, not to games themselves, and owners of virtual weaponry like the Gears of War 3 Avatar Lancer purchased before the policy goes into effect will be permitted to continue to wield them."
Walled Garden (Score:5, Insightful)
No rights in private forums (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many real world places that won't allow you to enter with a gun. They are not in violation of the 2nd amendment, neither is this. Being a virtual environment has nothing to do with it.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
When the gun grabbers grabbed my pretend guns, I said nothing, because they didn't do anything anyway.
Then they took my real guns... and I was a submissive retard for thinking their impulse to censor the expression of owning a weapon had nothing to do with their desire to eliminate the private ownership of all weapons.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point of that decision? A kid seeing a virtual gun is going to bring about the apocalypse?
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even weirder - Microsoft is still going to sell, and even make, games where you not only carry guns, but use them (sometimes quite violently). This is basically removing them from their out-of-game avatars.
Imagine if Nintendo pulled out the Charlie Chaplin mustache from their Miis (under the assumption that too many people were confusing it for the near-identical but far-more-evil Hitler 'stache), while still allowing hundreds of WW2 games to be made. That's the kind of stupidity we're looking at right now.
The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be surprised when an international audience (like the internet) laughs at you for it.
Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be surprised when an international audience (like the internet) laughs at you for it.
They may laugh at us in between crises, but when things go wrong, they are more than happy to see the Cowboy Yanks show up to save them.
LK
Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny enough, even Canadians are getting to the point where the right to bare arms is becoming a point in culture. We've scrapped the long arm(rifle) registry just this past october, and there's been long but steady increase in the number of people getting restricted licenses.
Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be the same "international audience" that we periodically have to save from some other part of the "international audience" because nobody but the Americans and the bad guys are comfortable around weapons. Right?
ffs. (Score:5, Insightful)
its a game. the only rights you have within the realms of a virtual environment are those provided by the terms of service.
I don't care how many hours you put in to perfecting your online avatar in your mothers basement, its still just a game.
Governments taught me (Score:0, Insightful)
I learned from watching governments that might makes right, guns let you force your will on other people and that it's OK to kidnap, torture and even assassinate people that disagree with you when the invisible magic sky fairy tells you to.
That's what I learned from watching governments.
So when can we get avatars that are water-boarding people that claim the same rights for themselves as we claim for ourselves?
Re:Walled Garden (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't say "fuck"? Are you kidding? You can say anything you want on XBLA. You're constantly accosted by ten year olds in Call of Duty throwing out every racist, homophobic, repulsive and offensive comment possible and there's no option but to either use it or don't use it. However, yes, it's bullshit. Why should a grown ass middle aged gamer have their experience nerfed to the point that it's appropriate for a six year old child? They have CATEGORIES that you select when you sign up for an account. There is a FAMILY section. If you are a child or you have children, select FAMILY. Then, Microsoft needs to actually pay attention to that fucking option (because they don't seem to use the Family/Pro/Casual/Underground/etc option for fucking ANYTHING).
Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if you don't have that right, you are not a free man, you are a subject. And as such, your rights and your life can be taken at any time the people who are your masters decide to. This is not theoretical. See Apartheid. See a hundred other things like that and worse.
You have only that freedom which you can defend, or which someone benevolently defends on your behalf. Presently Europe, for example, largely has this benevolent defense, but it has not always. Within memory of people now living, Europe tried to kill off entire races of people. It started by disarming them.
It takes willfully ignoring human history and looking only at your own little myopic localized good situation to even ask that question. Ask those who had the wrong skin color or the wrong religion why the right to bear arms is important. Oh, wait, you can't - their "rights" amounted for jack when someone *with* guns wanted to take those rights away from those without.
Bad analogy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, a private organization, such as MS, can tell their employees not to carry arms into the workplace, and it's perfectly OK.
Finally, if an argument is being made that there are "virtual arms," then one must refer to the "virtual Constitution." Seems to me that's the contract/TOS. I suspect it allows them to do what they want, and the user's option is to cancel their subscription. Really, does someone think they have rights when playing in MS's garden? Seems to me that it's only privileges, as provided by the contract.
Re:No rights in private forums (Score:2, Insightful)
> I've known people who were shot, raped, etc. and completely incapable of defending themselves because of our shitty laws
To be fair, you are still completely unable to defend yourself when you owe a gun.
The USA is probably the only place in the world where people are stupid enough to believe the lobby and think a gun makes you safe.
Actually, it is hightly unlikely that you are gonna be agressed when you carry the gun and even if it's the case it's unlokely that you are gonna be able to use it. Which probably fine because if you use it, you are unlikely to imper your agressor ability to counter-attack and are at a risk of being killed.
The likely thing is that your son might find it and kill himself with it or you gonna hurt yourself.
I am still astounded by the fact that despite the vast amount of studies and statistics published during the last fifty years, some americans are totally unable to understand this basic fact.
From the article you cited: (Score:4, Insightful)
Please tell me that LA County sheriff deputies no longer carry firearms, in accordance with the sheriff's beliefs.
Somehow, I suspect this is a case of "the rules apply to other people, not us."
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh for fucks sake... You think that Microsoft not allowing pictures of guns on a service they provide is evidence of The Man trying to take away your actual weapons? How paranoid can you be?
You might as well say the fact I can't drink at work is evidence that prohibition will be reinstated any day now.