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)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Walled Garden (Score:4, Funny)
The female nipples exist. Just get a water cooled rig and stop overclocking the shit out of your system. They'll "pop up" in no time.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. Too pointy. You'll poke your eyes out.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It does get old having to mute the everyone in the world.
How about a system that can detect the pitch of someones voice to guess their age.
"I'm sorry, but our tests indicate your balls haven't dropped yet, as such you will no longer be able to play this game, in the meantime here are some offerings we think you will enjoy."
Re: (Score:2)
(because they don't seem to use the Family/Pro/Casual/Underground/etc option for fucking ANYTHING).
Rest assured, they are using it to sell to marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Because Microsoft knows that if they should put in controls that prevent six year olds from seeing the gun items on avatars, eventually they will fail and then there will be a lawsuit. But if they just ban the items altogether, this isn't going to happen. And since statistically nobody is going to cancel their Xbox Live accounts over this, since they need them to play the games you've invested in online, there is no reason to do anything else. Honestly, it's like you're three or something, the "why" is so p
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:Bad analogy... (Score:4, Informative)
Which is why the push by government to continuously privatize state resources is so freaking scary. If you look at what's been going on for the past couple of decades hear in the U.S., its all about privatization.
No, the push to continuously privatize state resources is scary because corporations control our government. Otherwise some of that could be a good thing, because bureaucracy inherently tends towards inefficiency over time. And anyway, it's quite irrelevant; California used to have laws protecting the citizen's right to carry a firearm in any public place, but now we not only lack that law, but we have explicit laws prohibiting carrying them in many places. In fact, in California even hunters' rights to carry arms are abrogated; you're not permitted to carry any weapons with loads inpermissible for game, or any weapons you're not allowed to use on a particular sort of game. If you're out hunting for big game in California, it is actually illegal to carry your properly licensed concealed 9mm personal defense weapon; likewise if you are bowhunting, you're legally required to leave your .45 in the vehicle even though on public lands you may find yourself standing in the middle of someone's illegal grow op holding a bow and looking stupid while they unlimber their AKs.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really really stupid decision when you consider that the number of american households reporting gun ownership rose from 41-47% from last year to this year.
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine the delicious irony of complaining that you can't arm your virtual bear avatar?
You want a vicious looking brute with armor and advanced weaponry and they keep telling you to put up a Care Bear. Think of the children.
Re:No rights in private forums (Score:5, Interesting)
>>There are many real world places that won't allow you to enter with a gun.
Yes, it's called "California."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/10/local/la-me-brown-guns-20111011 [latimes.com]
>>They are not in violation of the 2nd amendment
Yes, it is.
I ANAL though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's called "California."
Not to mention most of the rest of the world.
"...most of the rest of the world?" (Score:2)
Uh, not really.
Fascinating reading: http://www.amazon.com/Worldwide-Gun-Owners-Guide/dp/B004QXMFNM [amazon.com]
Disclaimer: The only Amazon review of that book is mine.
Re:No rights in private forums (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]. The second was McDonald v. Chicago [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wiktionary.org] 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 [wordpress.com] 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.
Re: (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 pro
Re: (Score:2)
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.
between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. [nraila.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Handing someone a gun doesn't instantly make them an idiot.
But handing an idiot a gun doesn't instantly make them sane. Let's work on fixing the laws so that people like Jared Loughner can't get guns. Once we're no longer providing lethal, long range weapons to crazies and felons, then we can work on easing up the restrictions on the responsible citizens.
And before you even respond with the two biggest cliches:
1) "Outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns." The fact that some bad guys get guns doesn't mean we should make it easy for them.
2) "If people were allowed
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yes, but you definitely don't have the right to go onto private property without invitation. If the owner of that property says "You may only enter my property if you are unarmed" then you have to leave you weapon behind in order to enter legally. It's your choice whether you do that, or to stay off their property and armed (or to break the law by trespassing, in which case you'd better be ready to deal with the consequences).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yes, but you definitely don't have the right to go onto private property without invitation. If the owner of that property says "You may only enter my property if you are unarmed" then you have to leave you weapon behind in order to enter legally. It's your choice whether you do that, or to stay off their property and armed (or to break the law by trespassing, in which case you'd better be ready to deal with the consequences).
You are correct, but remember that there is a substantial amount of private property which is open to the public, and there are extensive limitations on what the owners of such property can restrict. In legal terms, any place of business that opens its doors to the general public is called a "public accommodation", and it may not exclude any person on the basis of their membership in a protected class, per federal law. In addition to that, many states further limit the authority of public accommodation o
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: (Score:2)
It's true, a firearm COULD be a threat to the well-being of a cop, especially when carried by a true patriot witnessing police malfeasance. It's the same reason California used to have a law enshrining the right to carry firearms in any public place -- they had the intent of serving the people -- and it's the same reason that law has been replaced with a variety of laws banning the carrying of firearms in California for most people in most cases, and especially where it is most important, like in parks (occ
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is just another in a long like of corporatists. He is no better and no worse than his predecessor; he is part of the same thing. Anyway, for the record, I never advocate violence except to prevent more of the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I ANAL though.
Yes, but are you a lawyer? That seems more appropriate to the discussion ...
Re: (Score:3)
this is new internet slang you can use in the bed room. Now you can ask a woman if she's a lawyer, if she says 'No' as in I ANAL then you can plunge right in. Give it a try on your next encounter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course I read it. Open carry, also known as "bearing arms" is now illegal in California unless you're on your way to go hunting, to a shooting competition, or a gun range.
Clear violation of the 2nd Amendment, IMO.
Re: (Score:3)
>>Which is of course why the right-wing is endlessly pushing for privatization. Eventually everything will be a private forum - so sorry about those first and second amendment rights.
Yes! Damn those anti-gun wingnut Tea Partiers!
Oh, er...
(You do realize that the majority of public buildings have bans on open and concealed carry, right? Privatizing jails won't change the fact you can't bring a gun into it.)
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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't stupidity its marketing. Games have a self selected audience. People who don't like virtual guns won't buy games that feature them whatever you do so you do but the remaining market is large enough to make profit. Thus you make games with virtual guns and market them as such. The Xbox live Avatar system needs to be as acceptable to as many people as possible since the theoretical market is everyone with an Xbox 360. As a result you get the Avatar market equivalent of Garfield.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
As a result you get the Avatar market equivalent of Garfield
So you advocate narcissistic overeating fat cats as suitable for children! How dare you, sir. How dare you.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I guess Heathcliff is the 99% :)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the real problem is oversensitive idiots and the desire to cater to them.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't stupidity its marketing
Brilliant marketing, at that.
We all know that none (or, at least, few enough that the number falls into the realm of 'noise') of the people complaining about this are going to stop buying Xbox games/paying for XBL Gold because of it, so by pandering to the (as described elsewhere in the subthread) 'oversensitive idiots', they're counting on a net win.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe but have no reference stating that California used to have a rule saying that you had to put all to-go alcohol purchases into a bag, perhaps to try to keep children from seeing that adults were buying booze or something. My local Safeway went from really anal about making sure your booze was in a bag to not caring, but my Grocery Outlet seems to still be bagging.
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: (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, Funny)
Canucks with bare arms will probably get frostbite this winter, and then they'll have nothing to bear arms with.
Re: (Score:2)
If we use bear arms in the winter you'd be doom. Ever see what an angry polar bear with a set of shotguns can do?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? This crap gets moderated insightful, when my post mentioning the last two countries to have the Cowboy Yanks show up "to save them" gets -1 Troll?
Fine, I'll rephrase: "Still getting Thank You cards from Vietnam?"
Re: (Score:2)
Mariano Rivera?
Re: (Score:2)
Although lately just about all you've been hearing has been the military actions in the middle east.
Check your history, some of it not even that old.
And yes, the USA has done plenty of screw-ups. Things like funding/helpin/arming the Contra, Iran, etc. Trying to foment military coups, taking over Hawaii, and other stupidities.
Although that kind of crud seems to be pretty standard f
Re: (Score:2)
I like your post very much. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Bush was smart enough to graduate, then he was dumb enough to be used like a puppet in a true "Team America" fashion.
Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZK61tV2nQQ [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KLhgZaRvc [youtube.com]
And there are many more, but I am off to relax before bed. Politics and slashdot don't relax me for some reason...
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KLhgZaRvc [youtube.com]
Just some quick links... Some people are regretting that the right is only left in America.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
This would be the same "international audience" that we periodically have to save from some other part of the "international audience"
Only if they have oil
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty tired of seeing this nonsense that the U.S. is the only country on the planet that helps other people being repeated.
Firstly, I do hope you realize that very rarely does the U.S. get engaged in something unilaterally. They are usually part of an international force, with many other nations participating.
Look up places like Timor, MINURSO [un.org] in the Western Sahara, MONUSCO [un.org] in the Congo, etc., etc. Read the history of WWII. Look up the number of times other countries have offered to help the U.S. and eithe
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty tired of seeing this nonsense that the U.S. is the only country on the planet that helps other people being repeated. (snip 12 more lines of tangential wharrgarbl)
Looks like you meant this reply for a different thread, or perhaps a different story altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Iraq and Afghanistan totally needed to be saved. The populace just loves Americans now.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the rest of the world has understood decades ago that when you leave, the "saved" are generally a lot worse off than they were before.
Arguably if it hadn't been for our presence in West Germany throughout the Cold War, life would have sucked for a very large number of Europeans. There was very little gratitude for that at the time, which never made much sense to me.
Whatever you say or think, lots of people outside the US feel that way, you better take these words to heart even if they hurt your ego
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably if it hadn't been for our presence in West Germany throughout the Cold War, life would have sucked for a very large number of Europeans. There was very little gratitude for that at the time, which never made much sense to me.
As a german, I can explain it to you. It is a matter of disappointment.
Immediately after WW2, the USA was a land of dreams for most germans, much like it had before for some, just more so (just look at emmigration numbers). American soldiers were generally liked, seemed affluent to an impoverished people in a bombed-out country, and the re-education regarding the whole Nazi thing worked well in framing you as the good guys despite having bombed us like you had no other hobbies.
But the US overstayed its welc
Re: (Score:2)
It's helpful to keep in mind the old adage that "Nations do not have friends or enemies -- they have interests." Rest assured, nobody with any influence in the US ever saw the East German citizenry as dirty commies or evil monsters, or whatever. Our fight (yes, including McCarthy's) was with the Communist ideology. Rightly or wrongly, we always saw the common people as victims, confined against their will within a framework of economic and political enforcement that had to be kept from spreading at any p
Re: (Score:2)
Do read some material on the russian point-of-view during the Cold War. It is utterly fascinating, really.
For all we know, the Kreml viewed the US as at least partially insane, and highly dangerous. Instead of the aggressive monsters they are painted at, the upper levels of the communist party were very much afraid of western aggression.
If I recall correctly, when Reagan was elected, the Kreml believed the west had gone entirely insane, and actually braced for nuclear war. They could not estimate how much o
Re: (Score:2)
Do read some material on the russian point-of-view during the Cold War. It is utterly fascinating, really. For all we know, the Kreml viewed the US as at least partially insane, and highly dangerous. Instead of the aggressive monsters they are painted at, the upper levels of the communist party were very much afraid of western aggression. If I recall correctly, when Reagan was elected, the Kreml believed the west had gone entirely insane, and actually braced for nuclear war. They could not estimate how muc
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
All-quantors are always wrong.
But he is right in pointing out that interests beyond good & evil were involved, on all sides.
Re: (Score:2)
I see cause and effect, not neccesarily fault.
After the Wall Street crash, the US couldn't make payments anymore to help rebuild Germany after WW1, that led to a bad economy there which resulted in an environment where Hitler could be elected.
Sometimes it's interesting to see how the dominoes fell.
Re: (Score:2)
They did nothing in 1944 that Russia wouldn't have done six months later.
Clue time, dumbass: in East Germany, they shot people for trying to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't see anything to laugh about, and it is quite sad to see that some countries have forfeited this right in exchange for an illusion of security.
Re: (Score:2)
So if someone in your country wants to own something you disagree with, then its okay for you to prevent them from owning it? Remind me, what's that called again?
It's a right that everyone has. Plenty of jackasses around the world say the same thing about other rights, weather it is free speech in China (free speech disrupts social harmony just like guns only kill) or Saudi Arabia (women driving opens them up to social corruption just like guns only kill) or even here in the US with prohibition (cannabis
Re: (Score:2)
As an American with a Swiss grandfather, I beg to differ.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
See Ghandi.
Indeed, do.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 372
Ghandi was not opposed to self-defense, either personal, social or national. He chose non-violence partly because he believed it was more moral, but mostly because it was the only viable strategy available to him. The British had already stripped the Indian people of arms in the Indian Arm
Re: (Score:2)
Americans used guns from 1775-1783 to wage war against Britain. Could that have had some bearing in proposing the Second Amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
Then why there is no right to be escorted by French military?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you study the revolutionary period, you will find that is, in fact, the point. King George had been doing quite a few things that annoyed the American colonists. For 9 years before first shots fired in the war, the Massachusetts Colony had been under military rule, although it wasn't very effective outside of Boston. In the rest of the colony local governments had been raising militias. The first shots of the American Revolution were fired on a detachment of British troops sent to confiscat
What does this have to do with the Constitution? (Score:3)
It's not a law. It's not the government restricting what you can do in a virtual environment, and even if it were a law, that would be a First, not Second, Amendment issue. This is no different from a store having a policy of not selling guns. Or more precisely, of a flea market setting a policy that its vendors cannot sell guns (or candy or wooden nickels or whatever else they want). What would the alternative be? Should Microsoft be forced to sell guns on Xbox Live? That would be a clear First Amendment violation.
The solution is simple. (Score:2)
If you want to bear virtual arms, you must have a virtual permit to bear arms...
Further more, it should be possible to distinguish fake virtual arms from real virtual arms, so you can see who (and what) you have in front of you.
But the best thing is I'm virtually bullet proof :)
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.
insanity (Score:2)
The 2nd has actual implications and matters.
This isn't "virtual arms" we are talking about, it is virtual fashion accessoirs. Virtual arms would be something that can do virtual damage. The "virtual" equivalent of the 2nd would be the right to own DDoS tools or something.
Just because it is a virtual something that looks like a firearm doesn't make it the virtual equivalent of one. If you can't shoot someone with it, even virtually, it is not a firearm. It's something that looks like one. But the 2nd doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
So the issue would be better stated as gamers not having a First Amendment right to adorn their Avatars with gun-like fashion accessories.
Spitwads or rubber bands? (Score:2)
As long as they get rid of the pizza guns. (Score:2)
Taylor said the school system has made it clear that if her son eats his pizza into the shape of a gun again and there is a similar occurrence, he will be suspended.
Where can I find an AR15? (Score:2)
Let me see if I have this right (Score:2)
So your XBL avatar won't be displayed with anything resembling a gun (unless you're grandfathered, which means virtual guns will still be all over XBL)...but you can still use virtual guns inside the games themselves to shoot enemies in the face, right?
Makes sense, MS. Got to protect the chilluns.
This may be due to how avatars are used in game (Score:2)
currently avatars are accessible in-game in some games. MS impose a limit of E or E10+ rating on those games. Having those lancers appearing in those games can have some issues.
Get a life (Score:2)
Seriously. There are such significant bigger issues to worry about in the world other then some geek feeling slighted because they can't buy their avatar a weapon. Is this not the definition of vapid?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Protect your virtual self and your virtual property?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
No one grabbed your guns. You can still display your avatar at home, or on the Internet. You just can't do it on the Xbox network, a privately-run network.
The same thing will happen if you go to a night club in Texas. You may have the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, but as soon as you want to enter a privately-run property like a night club, or a titty-bar, you have to drop off your guns at the gun check-in like everybody else, or just choose not to enter the establishment in the first place.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
More to the point: the Second Amendment was designed to prevent disarming of the citizenry by the government, not a private entity. This generally applies to the protections of the First and Second amendments. I have the right to prohibit the bearing of arms on my property or to kick you out if you say something I disagree with.
Microsoft bans pictures of firearms? That isn't the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this means they are censoring a picture of a gun. Think about that for a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
^ This.
If you're going to talk about the right to be armed "online", then surely that would refer to things actually capable of being weapons (and being used in the dreaded "cyber-war"^TM). This appears to be a case of MS deciding you can't have pictures of things (or text of things - I barely read the summary, never mind the article - got bored when it was clear this was a silly discussion), rather than anything to do with actual weapons.
Surely taking away people's weapons is (from my limited understanding
Re:Bear arms!? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way you could do that would be by establishing a monopoly in something the libertarian needs. Otherwise, they'll just support your right to charge what you will, and buy whatever it is somewhere else.
But, then you'd have a monopoly, so of course libertarians would loudly complain. Your "dream" is tautology...
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
I learned from the US government losing interest in Iraq and getting ready to bolt A-stan that guns in the hands of determined citizens can make it difficult for even a superpower to maintain control and for it to do so requires a crippling financial commitment.
IEDs etc
Re: (Score:2)
How did that work out for Chechnya?
Re: (Score:2)