Missouri Republican Wants Violent Video Game Tax 506
New submitter sHr0oMaN writes with news that Diane Franklin, a Republican member of Missouri's state House of Representatives, has proposed a sales tax on violent video games. The proposal, HB0157I, is one of many responses to the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The proceeds from the tax would go toward mental health programs and law enforcement in the hopes that future shootings can be prevented. The total amount taxed would be small — 1% — and would be applied to video games rated Teen, Mature, or Adult-only by the ESRB. Of course, many games earn the "Teen" rating without having violence in them, like Guitar Hero. The Entertainment Software Association responded to Rep. Franklin's bill with a statement: "Taxing First Amendment protected speech based on its content is not only wrong, but will end up costing Missouri taxpayers."
Misdirection (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks to me like a Republican, in the face of potential gun bans, is pointing at video games and saying "LOOK OVER HERE! HERE! LOOK OVER HERE INSTEAD."
Mind you I'm completely against any gun legislation myself.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm for punishing criminals and leaving law abiding citizens the right to own whatever weapons they want. However, it would be dishonest of me to act like it was a copy of Star Craft II (the game news reports stated he played) was used to murder the 20+ people in the latest spree killing, rather than -- you know -- firearms. It'd also be dishonest to act like he was being influenced by Star Craft II, instead of medication. Or that he was influenced by Star Craft II, instead of a crazy end-of-times-preparing mother.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
a crazy end-of-times-preparing mother
Perhaps it's the "speak no ill of the dead" rule, but I hadn't heard anything bad about the mother, almost nothing about her, other than she was trying to get him committed at the time, and even that seems unreliable, given the other early reports that were simply wrong, but repeated more than the truth itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
People say this a lot but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would criminals deliberately break into a house where the know the occupants are armed? Finding out which people don't have guns would seem to be a much safer home invasion strategy.
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Interesting)
Weren't guns supposed to decrease the likelihood of you being victimized by criminals?
No, they only level the playing field. While having a gun will deter the criminal that doesn't want confrontation, it doesn't deter the criminal that is looking to steal guns. It is a simple concept that seems to be lost to the anti gun types.
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Informative)
they don't report people defending themselves on the news
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you idiots also have police, law and lawyers running the place as well, what the heck do you need millions of guns for as well? Why are you paying for both kinds of security?
Because the police are there to serve the rulers, not protect the people. The courts has ruled that there is no requirement for police to show up if you need them in an emergency. But you can be damn sure they will arrest you if you are hurting the profits of the rich and powerful.
Re: (Score:3)
1. not guns
2. not video games
3. not his yuppie suburban scum sucking parents
mabey we can quiet the lynch mobs that the rest of us, and agree that your neighbor next door, no matter what you think of him was not complicit in this, nor any other mass shooting.
Re: (Score:3)
As Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] put it so succinctly:
It is a very odd sort of patriot that would destroy the first amendment to protect the second.
How bout we leave it there?
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
If you make anthrax illegal, only criminals will have anthrax!
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
Since this gun regulation conversation is overwhelmingly about firearms - as in, projectile weapons - I think it's fairly safe to assume that that's what the GP was talking about, rather than nuclear....
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
A missle is a projectile, and can be used to launch bio, chemical, and nuclear weapons. The fact is most "pro-gun" fanatics are quite willing to limit the type of arms people may bear.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Interesting)
By that logic the only weapon protected by the 2nd Amendment would be a musket.
Re: (Score:3)
Artillery are arms. Numerous private American citizens owned cannon, especially among shipowners.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all got to do with living in fear and what do Americans have to fear, why all those gun nuts surrounding them. Why do they need a gun, obviously to protect yourself from other people with guns. Hence the NRA as the lobbyists of gun manufacturers keep promoting more guns as the cure to too many guns. It's all about selling guns and ammunition and has nothing to do with creating safe neighbourhoods, safe work environments or safe schools. Nothing more than cynical psychopathic greed at work in all it's stars and stripes glory.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
has nothing to do with creating safe neighbourhoods, safe work environments or safe schools
Except when it comes to our political and media elites who have armed guards patrolling their gated communities, armed guards at their government and network offices, armed bodyguards when they happen to move around, and armed guards at their schools (at the latest count Obama's children's school hires 11, in addition to the Secret Service detail). But of course when it comes to the children of ordinary citizens, they should rely on the magic of gun-free zones and to repel the criminals and the psychos, and of course the police to arrive 20 minutes after the event and make a body count.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns are a thing that exist in this world. Pandora's box has been opened and they're not going away. A good machinist can MAKE a decent gun out of steel bar-stock, and anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of how they work can make a crappy slamfire shotgun out of less than $40 worth of stuff from any hardware store. The recent advances in 3D printing are making home-grown firearms even more simple and capable too.
So yes, if there were no guns then no one would need guns, but since the world if fresh out of genies in order to magically wish them away, then we deal with the situation as best we can: by making sure that as responsible citizens and family members we prepare ourselves to meet a threat to our lives or the lives of our loved ones with equal force. That means carrying a firearm. Police are expected to carry a gun in order to protect themselves from the threats right on our streets - why do you think we should be less armed when we walk down those same streets?
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Interesting)
Not true. Guns don't exist for the sole reason of protecting yourself from others with guns. If someone attacks you with a knife, do you think a knife is sufficient defense? You better believe I would rather bring a gun to a knife fight. And I'd rather bring a tank to a gun fight, but it's a little harder to carry a tank around in a holster. Regardless of what kind of weapon a person is attacking you with, I'd want to meet it with a gun in defense. And this scales up to when they invent phasers and other such things. I want the biggest bang that balances speed and accessibility so that the attack lasts as short a time as possible. The longer it lasts, the more likely I get hurt or killed. Even if someone doesn't have a weapon, if there are more of them than there are of you, a gun is STILL needed. A knife or bat may get the odds closer, but unless they attack you like a jackie chan movie, they'll quickly overwhelm you.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't "need" a TV, computers, Internet—anything beyond basic food and shelter—the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy.
Need is irrelevant to freedom. The right question is, "Why should the right of a peaceful individual to voluntarily own, trade, import, export, or carry any property, including firearms of any sort, be violently infringed?" And, of course, there is no justifiable reason to so infringe.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, but that doesn't excuse the giant misdirection from the left with its assumption that more bans = safer (look at chicago, and we tried this with alcohol too). If anything, more bans increases the pressure of the conflict. People who shoot up schools/malls/whatever are highly motivated. Making guns harder to get will not stop these people. If the goal is to prevent these events, then the leadership should spend more time fixing the core problems of our society, like the dying economy and civil lib
The exception proves the exception (Score:4, Insightful)
Outside the USA, gun bans are normal and deaths by weapons are all a tiny fraction of those in the USA. Where guns are allowed (e.g. Switzerland has quite a few) they get a lot more deaths, Swiss being more prone to just killing themselves than gun rampage+suicide.
Gun's don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
People with knives, you can run away from, guns though are designed to give the owner a killing advantage. There's simply no need for a killing advantage unless your intention is to kill.
"like the dying economy and civil liberties instead of passing populist kneejerk unsolutions"
So you're blaming the kid going into school with his moms GUN on the economy?
"Kneejerk", hardly kneejerk, this has been raised again and again and needs to be tackled but Republican gun nuts like Diane Franklin would sacrifice thousands of school children for their few thousand dollars NRA lobby money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The factor that you ignore is that these countries with draconian gun controls had fewer per capita gun murders than the US when their people were armed.
LK
Re:The exception proves the exception (Score:4, Insightful)
The factor that you ignore is that these countries with draconian gun controls had fewer per capita gun murders than the US when their people were armed.
Even before the "draconian gun controls", no other country in the world has ever had as many people with guns as the USA now. While other countries have tried to reduce the risks, Americans have only gotten more and more heavily armed and suffer the consequences.
Re:The exception proves the exception (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, as a non-gun owner, you say, "well, I must too have a gun." After such an event, everyone's risk of being shot with a gun doubles given that there are now two guns in the community. The original owner of a gun went from a 0% chance to a non-zero percent chance as well. The risk to the community has increased greatly, but yet, two members feel more secure, even though their actual risk increased. Continue that throughout and it's easy to understand the gun nut philosophy.
Those who profess that the problem isn't too many guns but rather too few completely fail at the prisoners dilema. Be sure to avoid doing anything significant with them; they apparently have already proven they will chose their own self interest over the greater good.
Re: (Score:3)
History shows us that unarmed populations have a non-zero chance of being killed by their own governments.
... And armed populations have a non-zero chance of that as well. In fact you're much more likely to be killed by a policeman if the policeman knows (or suspects) that you are carrying a gun.
Re:The exception proves the exception (Score:4, Interesting)
more and more heavily armed and suffer the consequences
Such as the murder rate going down.
Yeah, now it's only three times higher than Europe, instead of four.
Re: (Score:3)
And if it was halved, you'd be saying "Yeah, now it's only two times higher than Europe, instead of four."
Isn't improvement good anymore? Please go be smug somewhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how the "consequences" have been a steady drop in violent crime
Now you only have triple the murder rate of any country with civilised gun laws. But still, you must have an assault rifle for you to defend yourself from the underclass.
Also, Mexico to the south of us has gun laws that are just as strict and draconian as any of the so-called European Utopias,
Except, unlike Europe, they aren't enforced. And Mexico has a huge supply of guns across a porous border, funded by the drugs you buy from them.
The reality is that there are far more dynamic factors involved in crime rate than simply the presence of guns.
"Crime rate", yes. But the presence of guns determines the murder rate.
Re:The exception proves the exception (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The exception proves the exception (Score:4, Informative)
I found that you are 7.5 time more likely to die from a Broken Heart [cbsnews.com]
Also, if teens drink [ncpc.org] they are 7.5 time more like to die.
If you are a fat ass, you are 7.5 time more likely to have Choledocholithiasis. [symcat.com]
If you are a loser 45 year old then you are 7.5 times more likely to waste money. [pocketgamer.biz]
Lastly (on the Google search results) if your PSA values are between 2.0 to 2.9 ng/mL you are 7.5 times more likely to die of Prostate cancer.
But nothing about guns being 7.5 times more deadly than....what? Hammers? [wiscnews.com] nope. Baseball bats? [woai.com] hmmm..nope. I know! knives! [yahoo.com] drag...sorry, not knives either.
So I have to conclude you just pulled that out of your ass. Hint: Brady Gun Control propaganda is about the same thing as your ass.
Re: (Score:3)
>Shockingly, criminals won't be rushing to turn their guns in if there ever were a blanket ban. On the other hand you will be taking them out of the hands of the people getting assaulted so at least it'll be safer for the people doing the assaulting.
Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the criminals are in it for MONEY - not violence, violence is just a means to an end and the very existence of a criminal justice system gives them a strong motivation to use as little of it as they can
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously your not going to blame a corrupted to the core economy which has a billion links and citations to go with it on people loosing their f'ing minds?
I can't get inside this dumb ass kids head, but I imagine he was pretty sure he was going to live a life of servitude to a master he didn't want. He probably didn't ever get a real shitkicking, so didn't learn empathy for pain and suffering. He probably suckled at his mothers teat his whole life. He probably was angry and wanted to end it. He probably wa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
P.S. our medical system is 500% more fucking corrupt then our economic system. Pharmaceuticals, corrupt ass doctors, pushing drugs that destroy peoples sex drives and wreck their lives. Just for control and more money. Ignoring the real socia-political-cultural problems. We stopped dealing with it as a society when we stopped being politically incorrect and rallying, forcibly if necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with some of your post, except for two areas.
Bully anyone enough, even the most well-adjusted happy teenager, and you'll get a psychopath out the other end, regardless of his upbringing.. The public schools are breeding grounds for this kind of behavior because instead of teaching kids to stand up for themselves, our 'PC' culture teaches ineffectual passive-aggressive 'coping skills' that actually magnify the teasing as they destroy self-esteem. The 'normal' kids who aren't fully indoctrinated with
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah I was talking about exactly what you illustrated much more perfectly then me. Authority shouldn't be meeting out the shit kicking ever. But knowing what its like to get in a fight or two, see the other guy beaten and feel sorry for what you did. Or feel dumb for picking a fight you should never have, then making friends after is a crucial part of development in my humble if a little spittle flecked opinion =)
You got it right.
Re:The exception proves the exception (Score:4, Funny)
_____________________
[1] - Splitting infinitives would also be part of the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
no, no, that's quite incorrect.
"Guns don't kill people; apes with guns kill people."
at least that's what charleston heston used to say. he would know, right?
Re: (Score:2)
"charleston heston"
sigh.
damn you, spell correct. damn you all to hell!
s/b charlton heston. afaik, he had nothing to do with that trendy dance, so long ago.
Re:The exception proves the exception (Score:4, Insightful)
You can sanitize the environment all you like, but if someone wants to kill, they will.
There is a huge difference between someone killing someone they hate and someone mowing down 30 people to kill someone they hate because he has an ak-47.
Re: (Score:3)
For one, you have the cause and effect reversed. Having a gun does not make someone want to kill people, just like having bottles of toxic cleaners in a cabinet doesn't make one want to poison someone.
The issue claimed here is about ease of access. It's harder to get an AK47 into your hands today than it is to build a homebrew explosive device for example. Guys like lanza use what's at their disposal. if he didn't have access to weaponry, he would've made his own.
Re: (Score:3)
For the record, Columbine did not have "armed guards". It had a "community resource officer" (singular). Who was sitting in his car at the edge of campus having lunch at the time. Why was he doing this instead of guarding the school? Answer: Because he wasn't a guard.
Re: (Score:3)
it IS cultural, you have that right.
there can't be quick fixes or easy solutions to things that run so deep and have a long (long for us) history.
aggression, extreme competitiveness, the winner-takes-all way that we look at things, all this - and more - is what contributes to the culture of violence that we have.
guns are an obvious form of violence, but there is also a class war going on and the middle and lower classes are being pushed downward. this creates 'pressure' and Bad Things(tm) happen when you p
No taxation without representation ... (Score:2)
Looks to me like a Republican, in the face of potential gun bans, is pointing at video games and saying "LOOK OVER HERE! HERE! LOOK OVER HERE INSTEAD."
Well, I guess it would be okay if Colleen Lachowicz [dailymail.co.uk] was my representative. Otherwise, I'd refuse. I mean, are there even any republicans out there that have actually played a videogame?
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to ban guns. I'm male, and I think guns are cool. But seriously, sort yourselves out over there.
It has to be misdirection. (Score:2, Insightful)
The rest of the fucking industrialized world has violent video games and violent movies, and the vast majority of them do not see the gun deaths we do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Question (Score:3)
How are mental health programs and law enforcement going to stop the one messed up kid who doesn't talk to anyone outside of the internet?
If nobody knows the psycho is out there, no amount of money can prevent them spazzing out.
Re: (Score:2)
Well shucks kid, if he ain't out there playin' football like a healthy boy his age ought to do, I reckon there be something not right in that there head o' his and he should be seeing one o' dem head-looking-atter fellas or whatcha call em
the Nazis did stuff like that they made the Jews (Score:2)
the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear as well sending them off to camps and that was a very bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
It can't. The real question is, how the fuck yet another mental case shooting up a school automatically the result of video games?
And once again, the answer is that they don't. People always have to pick something to blame that the majority of people like to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They might as well tax gangsta rap "music".
Blaming video games is quick and easy, and taxing them is also quick and easy.
The real problem is that since the Carter administration, this country has been turning nut cases loose in massive numbers. Look at the homeless population of any large city and you will find enough whack jobs to fill an asylum.
But it goes farther than that. The very definition of insane has been made obsolete in the rush to accept diversity of every possible kind. Therefore t
Re: (Score:2)
The behavior of the police in minority communities is the driving force behind the "stop snitching" movement.
Really? That's not what I hear.
The driving force behind "stop snitching" is the gang bangers that show up at your door if you snitch.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is, how the fuck yet another mental case shooting up a school automatically the result of video games
It wasn't the video games, man. It was the briefcase. That kid carried a briefcase. We should be, like, taxing them. Briefcases are the problem, man.
It's briefcases, all the way down . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, just give up. The crazies have taken over, and they're running things.
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me crazy but aren't most people educated in public facilities that could theoretically have people in them? Of those theoretical people how many would you say probably have at least one functioning eye and one functioning ear? Now of that subset how many do you figure would have a functioning mouth?
The real problem isn't the lack of observers but the lack of responders to the observations from the observers. The criminal justice system is the only established means of dealing with mental illness in the United States. If a kid has a problem and the parents can't/won't bankroll it themselves, then there are effectively zero treatment options available until the kid gets a criminal record. The government won't pay for it neither will health insurance won't pay for it. Even if they did, there exists no legal framework outside of criminal law to force someone into treatment when justified.
Elephants *do* forget (Score:5, Funny)
A Republican wants a tax? Someone is about to receive a pair of "Norquist galoshes".
Missouri Tyrant Wants Violent Video Game Tax (Score:2)
People should start referring to these people properly.
Quit framing this as Democrat vs. Republican issue; this is an issue of Tyranny vs. Liberty, and Tyranny will rear its ugly head in any party that it can!
Taxes (Score:3)
And pray tell, honorable senator from Missouri, what will these taxes go to? Because given your party's actions to date, I'm pretty sure it won't be helping to educate anyone. Maybe a discount on some voucher program? Paying for adults to stand in front of teens and explain to them how condoms are only for bananas? Or maybe a rainy day fund for members of your party caught in airport restrooms?
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Informative)
(and yes, I did read where they said the tax money would go... but read the bill text... don't follow the words, follow the money. The money, in this case, goes to the general fund.)
Video Game Tax (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican idea of small government is as big as it can be while only being slightly smaller than the Democrats what it to be.
Re:Video Game Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Video Game Tax (Score:4, Insightful)
small government really means 'go light on the social services'. that's the code word translation from republican-speak to normal english.
note that 'social services' includes our sewers, roads, infrastructure; you know, what us commoners rely on.
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the point of my comment.
"Small Government" Republicans don't want any restrictions on businesses, and think all "services" (as you point out) should be either individual contribution or charity, but they're big into legislated morality.
Hence, the concept that all they want to regulate (or have the government care about) is what kind of sex you're having.
At some point in the (now distant) past, "small government" republicans actually were for responsible spending, and that included basic ser
Stupid questions (Score:2)
does a politician want exposure without committing any budget?
(given that's a republican politician): how much for "law enforcement" and what proportion for "mental health"?
What does violent games have to do with "mental health"? If "depicting violence whenever accessed" is the key for the answer, why not tax all the TV station for every news about violence? Or, indeed, any display of violence... even in sports involving fighting or... wars???
Never let a serious crisis go to waste... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Rahm Emanuel
So everyone you see these days flogging one plan or another in wake of Sandy Hook really don't give 2 shits about the kids that were killed, just about using the emotional uproar to advance their agenda and get it passed in a flurry of reflexive emotion.
Gonna be one odd IRS application to write: (Score:5, Funny)
Sample Game Tax List:
$0.03 per ounce of blood visible
Spleen visible: $1
Spleen split/burst: $3
Brain visible: $2.50
Brain split/burst: $5
Heart visible: $2
Heart split/burst: $4
Intestine visible: $1.75
Intestine split/burst: $3.75
Choking/strangulation using intestine: $8
Choking/strangulation using victim's own intestine: $12
Flying eyeball: $2 per ball
Decapitation: $3 per head
Robot death: $0.30
Counterproductive (Score:3)
Make violent video games harder to get and play, and it's just going to increase the amount of violence in the real world.
There are always a few kids "inspired" by violent games, but for the majority of the people who play these things, it's an outlet for some pent-up aggression that they'd otherwise have trouble releasing.
A lot of these mass shootings are done by people who want control, but feel that it is slipping away from them. Video games, and violent video games in particular, give them this control, if only temporarily.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of these mass shootings are done by white males who want control, but feel that it is slipping away from them.
Fixed that for you.
We can't have an honest conversation if we aren't talking about who the shooters are,
because the solution(s) to this problem are going to be different than the solutions we've used to reduce urban gun violence by minorities.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh how very insightful of you. Let's bring race into this.
Let's talk about all the inner city black on black murders while we're talking race, because that's by far the majority of gun violence in the US. And guess what? They're not using rifles or "assault weapons" for any of it. They're using handguns. And it is directly a result of this idiot "war on drugs" where 100% of the casualties of war are American citizens.
Make life harder for poor people (Score:4, Funny)
Ah yes.... there's little Timmy (the Dickens one, not the Slashdot one), saving to buy "Beserkers: The game with real bloodspurt(tm) certified by the NRA for massacre training, endorsed by Ted Nugent" and he's at the GameStart store and he's 14 cents short because of the tax.
DAMN YOU, Republicans! How dare you deny a child a game because of your endless taxes! It's like how in Florida you've run the cost of a carry permit up to ~$150 so people who live in poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods can't afford them.
Mitt Romney, this is all your fault. Grrrr.
Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion causes more violence than video games.
Tax churches.
Try government (Score:5, Insightful)
Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. Governments have murdered far more people than religion has. In fact, that's exactly why we have the second amendment. The government has a much harder time killing innocent people when they are armed.
The governments of the world have murdered far more children than citizens ever have.
Re: (Score:3)
well if you add up all the bodies over time due to religious reasons, and religion ruled governments, I think you will find that number is slightly larger than non religion run governments
You assertion is incorrect. There's been actual studies on this, and while religions have been violent, none of them had ideologies that explicitly called for the extinction of sizable chunks of the population. Hence, their wars and violence have on the aggregate been tame compared to those of murderous political ideologies, many of which self-declared atheistic. Both in absolute and percentual scales, religious violence's been historically less violent than non-religious one.
Google the subject and you'll f
Re:Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no mod points, and you're already at +5, but I just wanted to add my +1, Insightful to your comment.
Religion has caused, and is causing, more hate and violence than any political ideology that I can think of in recent times. The tax-free status of religions needs to be revoked immediately.
As a former Christian, I've abandoned the "faith" and I'm currently trying to stop my wife from giving away my hard earned salary to an organisation that cannot prove anything it stands for.
Can't always get what you want (Score:4, Insightful)
Missouri Republican Wants Violent Video Game Tax
And I want idiots like him to shut the fuck up, respect my freedom, and do something useful. Oh well, I guess we can't always get what we want, and I suspect neither of us will in this case.
Already against this on principle. (Score:4, Informative)
Like TFS states, games can receive T, M, or AO ratings without being violent. If a game is AO for explicit sexual content, that isn't a violent video game (and I would be hard-pressed to find someone other than this Missouri representative who would believe otherwise). The ESRB does give specific qualifiers in the ratings for why a game is rated as it is. The ESRB will tell you, on the box, if a video game received its rating because of violent content.
If section 144.1020 were re-written so as to appear to be the product of a reasonable human being, I might be in favor of this idea.
PA (Score:2)
Obligatory Penny-Arcade [penny-arcade.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Or that could be destroy the first amendment in order to destroy the second.
Or destroy the second amendment in order to destroy the first.
Depends who you ask, but all are equally viable.
Is there a contest going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Stupidest Proposed Law in Response to a Tragedy" or something? I'm seeing a lot of entries lately.
Re: (Score:3)
Partly this is because no one in any part of our government wants to do anything useful in solving any real problems, because it would interfere with the flow of graft.
However, if people see that the government is useless, then they might act to change it. So they do that Wizard of Oz thing where you have the giant fake head making lots of scary noise, while saying "pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain." Tragedies like Newtown are godsends, because they cause a great emotional reaction an
Re: (Score:3)
Adam Lanza could have been blocked from guns, in which case he'd likely have used gasoline or an automobile. (I know of a few cases of mentally ill people committing arson. Trust me, the kids murdered by arson are just as dead as those killed by guns.)
And, if so, the arson would have probably occurred at night (most are, as to avoid detection by the authorities) and, as such, would have had fewer innocent victims. Same with the car scenario, which would probably have been damaged too badly to be driven (by
Tax on Missouri Republicans (Score:3, Funny)
Ugh... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure it'll have a broad enough definition that nearly every game could count. Space Invaders? You shot a weapon at enemies. Pac-Man? Ran around eating dots until eating "special" dots that make you strong enough to go take out your enemies. Super Mario Brothers? Stomped on enemies or sometimes shot them with fire once obtaining a special weapon.
Yet another bill proposed by someone that hasn't got a clue about the real world around them.
It will never fly (Score:4, Interesting)
How about the 1% tax be placed on GUNS ? Dur... (Score:4, Insightful)
You could use the funds for the very purpose described.
But of course not, because then that might acknowledge that guns are part of the problem with gun violence (shocker!). The fact she was endorsed by the NRA in 2012 has nothing to do with it either obviously...
I thought we hashed this out in the 90s... (Score:4, Interesting)
When Tipper Gore and her PMRC tried to couple violent society with violent games and movies... "NANNY STATE! NANNY STATE! PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY!" was the deafening call from the GOP pundits. And now.. wtf?
Wouldn't it be more direct to tax guns and ammo? (Score:3)
Hooray for more DOA laws. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Entertainment Software Association responded to Rep. Franklin's bill with a statement: "Taxing First Amendment protected speech based on its content is not only wrong, but will end up costing Missouri taxpayers."
Not only would this cost Missouri taxpayers extra if implemented (assuming they didn't simply purchase out of state through Amazon), but it'd also cost them a significant amount to defend in court. The government passing laws that disproportionately impact specific speech content is a pretty clear no-no under the First Amendment. If it were ever to pass, it'd be ripped apart by the courts in seconds.
The end result (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you start charging for it or place limits on redistribution and dissemination,
Errrmmm... So, aristotle... let's be "logical" to the end.
So... you know... if one starts placing restriction on who the one makes sex with, it's no longer a form of expression, it's becoming commerce and, as such, subject to state regulations. The monogamous marriages would better go and... (either pay money as a tax, also as an option:) fsck the states' tax offices too... in the percentage established by tax regulations. Specifically, if a condom is used during the act, the percentage should be higher (n
just buy online and pay 0 tax so they give up sale (Score:2)
just buy online and pay 0 tax so they give up sales tax with this BS as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't want a made-up number for the tax levied to a product that is an imaginary culprit for a freak-event that occurs with one person every couple of years?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you ever want a made-up number?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Tax Churches like business, and remove tax deduction for donations. any donation.
Time to stop government support of churches.