Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

XBox (Games) Microsoft Games

A Right To Bear Virtual Arms? 201

Posted by Soulskill
from the preserving-xbox-live's-pristine-reputation dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Right To Bear Virtual Arms?

Comments Filter:
  • by ShakaUVM (157947) on Monday December 26, 2011 @06:27PM (#38497236) Homepage Journal

    >>There are many real world places that won't allow you to enter with a gun.

    Yes, it's called "California." []

    >>They are not in violation of the 2nd amendment

    Yes, it is.

    I ANAL though.

  • by Ihmhi (1206036) <> on Monday December 26, 2011 @07:37PM (#38497722)

    Disclaimer: IANAL either, but I'm a bit knowledgeable on the topic.

    There were two major supreme court cases regarding the Second Amendment in the last few years.

    The first was District of Columbia v. Heller []. The second was McDonald v. Chicago []. What do these mean?

    As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the right of an individual to keep and bear arms on their own property (home, land, etc.) is recognized and cannot ever be taken away. This means things like Chicago, San Francisco, and DC's gun ban laws are/were unconstitutional.

    We have unfortunately not yet addressed concealed carry or open carry on a nationwide level. I really hope that it happens soon. I live in New Jersey which is almost as bad as California when it comes to gun laws. I've known people who were shot, raped, etc. and completely incapable of defending themselves because of our shitty laws.

    Again, IANAL, but "bear" arms presumably means, you know, to actually carry them. (That is, in fact, the definition [] of the transitive.) Although the SCOTUS has yet to decide on this issue, it's pretty clear cut to me that we ought to be able to carry guns basically anywhere per the constitution.

    Before anyone talks about the potential ruination of society, keep in mind that there are more than a few [] countries in the world where this very thing happens and their society hasn't fallen apart because everybody is armed. Handing someone a gun doesn't instantly make them an idiot.

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.