Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Right To Bear Virtual Arms?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the preserving-xbox-live's-pristine-reputation dept.

XBox (Games) 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Walled Garden (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38496946)

And people wonder why I hate the walled garden approach to gaming... You can blow people away, but you can't say fuck... Idiots.

Re:Walled Garden (4, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497278)

No female nipples either. They are apparently not suitable for young children.

Re:Walled Garden (3, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497290)

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:Walled Garden (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497474)

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:Walled Garden (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498318)

You know you can mute individual players, right?

Bad analogy... (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497840)

First, the US Constitution affirms the rights of individuals against government interference.

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.

Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38496948)

The Second was meant to enable you to protect yourself and your property. What good is a virtual gun going to do you?

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38496984)

Protect your virtual self and your virtual property?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497878)

yip I'm with you on that I quickly went and bought the GEARS OF WARS LANCER to protect my self when the raving mad 10 year olds start burning down the virtual city Ill be able to blast them away and saw then in half (double tapping) at the same time awesome.

P.S. I wanter how many lancers they going to sell.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38496998)

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:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497038)

Of course, I recognized that the seizing of the pretend guns had nothing to do with the second amendment, per se.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497126)

Then I had ice cream...

Re:Why? (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497176)

Actually the TSA started this a long time ago. How many people have had to change T-shirts to get on a flight? "Gimme the dame plane or I will point my shirt at you!"

I say "Let 'em seize my gun!" (1)

CCTalbert (819490) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497400)

I don't think it's really been a good day if someone hasn't seized my gun.

Better still firmly seized it several times.

I prefer to leave other guys guns be though. I ain't wired that way.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497076)

It is also to be able to kill authority figures that are not representing the people. "Security of a free State" is pretty clearly also for violent reprisal for internal foes as well. ...not that it applies in this case either.

Re:Why? (2)

Zcar (756484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497770)

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.

Bear arms!? (0)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#38496988)

Bears have paws, not arms.

Re:Bear arms!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497008)

Humans have hands, not arms?

Re:Bear arms!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497014)

I'd like to see such a T-Rex style bear that has paws in spite of having no arms.

Re:Bear arms!? (3, Funny)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497132)

The Bear Jew does...

No rights in private forums (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38496990)

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:No rights in private forums (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497180)

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.

Re:No rights in private forums (2)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497250)

>>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.)

Re:No rights in private forums (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497182)

That was my first thought - you are generally allowed to keep a firearm in your home but you can't take it with you wherever you please regardless of permits. Xbox Live could be analagous to a mall or other large, privately owned public space - if the mall bans guns then the second amendment can't stop them. If Xbox Live somehow banned you from having gun avatars on your own personal machine while not connected to Live, that would be closer to a second amendment issue. However, because we're talking bits and bytes and not real firearms, isn't this more of a first amendment issue than a second amendment anyway? Not that the first amendment applies to a private corporation much more than the second amendment would...

Re:No rights in private forums (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497316)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497828)

It doesn't have to be a carebear. You could also use something like... say... ManBearPig!

Re:No rights in private forums (4, Interesting)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497236)

>>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:No rights in private forums (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497256)

Do you want to hang out and have some anal sometime?

Re:No rights in private forums (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497518)

California is not a private forum, so whether or not it is in violation of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to the point being made (which is that, in a private forum, you are not guaranteed many of the freedoms that you might enjoy in public ones).

Re:No rights in private forums (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497614)

Yes, it's called "California."

Not to mention most of the rest of the world.

Re:No rights in private forums (4, Interesting)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 [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:No rights in private forums (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38498252)

> 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.

Remember that "I agree" button? (0)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38496992)

The one that came after a wall of incomprehensible legalese? I'm sure you "agreed" to give up your virtual second amendment rights, among various other things.

Re:Remember that "I agree" button? (1)

MSZ (26307) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497764)

More so, you agreed that your rights are limited to "STFU and pay or GTFO".

Why? (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497062)

What's the point of that decision? A kid seeing a virtual gun is going to bring about the apocalypse?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497108)

No, that would be silly.
A kid seeing a virtual gun before loading up a game is going to bring about the apocalypse.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497128)

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:Why? (1)

geniice (1336589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497266)

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? (3, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497322)

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:Why? (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497444)

I believe the real problem is oversensitive idiots and the desire to cater to them.

Re:Why? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498158)

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:Why? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497562)

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 (5, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497136)

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 (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497154)

The sheep can laugh at lions all they want. Laughing doesn't stop the sheep from being defenseless prey.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (4, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497162)

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 (1, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497204)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497218)

Canucks with bare arms will probably get frostbite this winter, and then they'll have nothing to bear arms with.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497906)

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:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (-1, Flamebait)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497320)

Yes, Cowboy Yanks do show yo to "save them", but "them" never lives in Africa. Also "them" happen to live mainly in areas that are in any way economically interesting.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0, Troll)

Xeno man (1614779) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497666)

You watch too many movies. When was the last time the Yanks saved anybody? Americans can't even save them selves. New Orleans ring any bells?

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1, Troll)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497724)

Still getting Thank You cards from Afghanistan and Iraq?

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1)

notknown86 (1190215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498290)

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.

Says who? Fox News?

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497188)

Considering the protests in the UK and Australia now, I think a lot of places have stopped laughing.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497326)

What protests?

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497362)

He's probably pointing out that selling "gun control" to the left was probably the greatest trick the devils on the, um, left ever pulled.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497706)

What protests? Did you mean the rioting in which looters made off with anything they could and burnt businesses? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14460111 [bbc.co.uk]

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497918)

There are protests in Australia? Like OWS? And you got +5 Insightful?

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (4, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497238)

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:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0, Flamebait)

Langfat (953252) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497548)

...nobody but the Americans and the bad guys...

I thought they were one in the same?

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497868)

Unfortunately, the truth is that the events of the last 10-15 years are proving your comment to be more than a sarcastic joke.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497638)

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:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497876)

Or Jews.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497930)

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?

Thanks for what you guys did in 1944, that was really great. But tell us, why have you been fucking up constantly since then?

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38498332)

They did nothing in 1944 that Russia wouldn't have done six months later.
I am glad that people sacrified their lives to liberate my country but stop pretending it was out of generosity.
The USA entered the war mainly for economic reasons and they essentialy saved their ass from Russia hegemony not "the world".

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498560)

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:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498258)

The only one who feels that you have to save anyone from anyone else is you.

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.

The only time you ever saved anyone without bringing total ruin was WW2, and the laurels from that are getting old as the people who actually remember are dying off.

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:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498544)

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.

(Shrug) I have no dog in the fight. Just pointing out that it's hypocritical to make fun of another country's establishment of self-defense rights, when the lessons of history tell us all too clearly what happens when the state is given a monopoly on the use of force.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38498552)

And we only needed "saving" because US companies decided that it would be a good idea to ignore the League of Nations (the UN of the day, for better or worse) and profit by rearming Germany in the first place (through a couple of shell companies for the look of the thing). For two and a half years, you allowed Hitler to run rampage over all of Europe, maintaining neutrality whilst leasing us supplies and materiel at over the odds and then finally joined in when your own interests were threatened in the pacific.

I don't claim that my own country was either blameless or selfless, but for the USA to claim that their reluctant intervention was in any way heroic is extremely disingenuous.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498578)

Yeah. It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0, Troll)

isCreeper($('Ssss')) (2424986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497590)

I don't understand why gun ownership should be a "right". They only exist to kill or wound people - hunting excepted. Could an American give an explanation of why they are so necessary?

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497760)

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:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497776)

Its pretty simple actually. Criminals don't give a fuck and when some guy has decided he's going to rape or murder you it'd be nice to have a way to make him stop trying to do that immediately and permanently.

Or do I not have the right to defend my life, or yours for that matter should I stumble upon someone trying to kill you?

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38498170)

And somehow I've managed, in the 52 years I've been on this planet, to walk around some pretty bad places, and never had "some guy" decide he's going to rape or murder me. As such, I don't feel the need to carry.

But I'm a realist; tomorrow could be the day I walk around the corner and my number comes up and Mr. "some guy" is there. Well, I'm in good shape. I could probably outrun him. If he's got a gun, can I outrun a bullet? No, but if he's as good a shot as I am (and I own a gun, and I practice at a target range) then I guess I'll take my chances that he's not very likely to be able to hit a moving target.

And no, I don't want to be shot. Nor do I want, as statistics show is likely to happen, to have my own gun taken away from me and used against me either.

You do have the right to defend yourself. There are many ways to do so. The vast majority of them don't involve the use of a gun.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497838)

Well, 240 years ago it was deemed that gun ownership should be a right because the government kept sending the army out to take the durn rebels canons away from them.

Fast forward 240 years and we seem to have a bunch of pantywaists who are afeared that if they get a flat tire or some'at in some of the seedier parts of town that the darkies will come out and git 'em.

But never mind the statistics that show that you're more likely to become the victim if you pull out a gun "to defend yourself"; we got a bunch of skeerdykats that feel a need to carry a piece in order to feel safe. (But why not just stay out of the bad neighborhoods if you don't feel safe there?)

I'm born and raised in the U.S. Six feet tall, 200 lbs, not especially tough. I've been in Watts and East L.A., south Chicago, East St. Louis, the Bronx, and once on vacation walked through downtown Johannesburg at 6 AM one very dark morning, and not once in my life have I felt the need or desire to carry a gun. As such I can't explain why so many of my fellow Americans have this need to carry a gun.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38498256)

Your question is phrased wrong. You shouldn't pass laws because there's no reason not to. Still, I'll bite.
Look around you? Is there a cop within 100 yards. Chances are there isn't.
Hypothetically, if in thirty seconds someone comes at you with a deadly weapon, wouldn't you rather have a gun? Good luck banning everything that can be used as a weapon, and studies have show carrying a gun does increase your chances of survival if you are attacked.
The clincher, though, is that we haven't found any evidence that gun control is effective. True, we have a high murder rate, but countries with lower ones have always had them. The murder rate in the UK climbed for the first few years after their 1997 ban, and not until 2009 has Londen's murder rate (controlled for population) even been equal to that in 1996. A US gov study found no increase in crime due to lax gun laws (or vice versa) in the 90's.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38498276)

Gun ownership is a right just like owning a car, Wii, or table is a right. The second amendment doesn't provide that right, it protects the existing right. So, why don't need a special amendment to own a table? Because it's assumed to be a natural right, but it's one that nobody fears being infringed. Nobody is expected to ever start threatening to ban tables in some kind of plot. The second amendment was written because it was believed that at some point people would want to disarm the people. They felt this possibility was real enough that it justified the writing of the second amendment.

So why are guns so important? Because they can "kill or wound people".* If some major force truly threatens the people's rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the right to keep and bear arms could be the one right that the people use to save all the other rights (or die trying). Some may claim that we're living in a time when that will always equal .22 rifles against F22 planes, but I think things could be much more complicated than that. If it really came down to that, at least allow the people to die fighting for their freedom, even if it's a hopeless battle.

Personally, I don't think I should need to justify my right to bear arms any more than I should need to justify my right to own a table. But then I grew up around guns and see them as normal things that normal people have but must always be treated with respect.

* Guns can be used for more than just killing/wounding (people or animals). For example, some people own guns strictly for (non-hunting) recreational purposes - target shooting, that kind of thing.

Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism (2)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497670)

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.

Arm bears? (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497150)

What's all this I hear about arming bears? I mean, aren't they dangerous enough?

Oh, never mind.

Company makes random decision, news at 11 (0)

fotbr (855184) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497152)

Really, who cares?

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497168)

That's a 'contract' between the U.S. Government and the American people.

It has no applicability – none, zero, nada, zilch, zip – to EA, Epic, iD, Bethesda, Valve, etc, and you.

What does this have to do with the Constitution? (2)

brusk (135896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497258)

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 logical result of Libertarianism (-1, Troll)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497262)

Although amusing, this is a perfectly example of what results from Libertarian logic. If property rights override all other rights, then large property owners are effectively tyrants.

How many times have there been Slashdot postings about corporate based discussion boards that censor negative comments?

Rand Paul came out a couple of years ago and said that racial prejudice should be legal in business, because property rights were absolute. (This time I'm not going to look it up, you go an find it on Google.)

Personally, one of my dreams is to discriminate against a Libertarian in an economic transaction simply because of their political affiliation. In theory, they should be supportive of my position, since property rights are absolute. In practice, I think they would squeal like a stuck pig. I have a strong hunch that no Libertarian can conceive that they would be excluded from anything because of personal prejudice.

Re:The logical result of Libertarianism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497418)

Personally, one of my dreams is to discriminate against a Libertarian in an economic transaction simply because of their political affiliation. In theory, they should be supportive of my position, since property rights are absolute. In practice, I think they would squeal like a stuck pig. I have a strong hunch that no Libertarian can conceive that they would be excluded from anything because of personal prejudice.

That's cool, go for it. I must say, however, that your personal dreams might need an upgrade soon...just sayin'.

Re:The logical result of Libertarianism (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497516)

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:The logical result of Libertarianism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497452)

you fail at "property rights override all other rights" so the rest of your post is a retarded fantasy.

Re:The logical result of Libertarianism (0)

MSZ (26307) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497894)

Although amusing, this is a perfectly example of what results from Libertarian logic. If property rights override all other rights, then large property owners are effectively tyrants.

Within their property. You would always have option of not entering their little kingdoms.

How many times have there been Slashdot postings about corporate based discussion boards that censor negative comments?

And they have right to do it, regardless of the fact that it makes them look stupid and guilty.

Rand Paul came out a couple of years ago and said that racial prejudice should be legal in business, because property rights were absolute. (This time I'm not going to look it up, you go an find it on Google.)

That is not surprising, typical libertarian view is that anyone should be able to discriminate any stupid way he wants and this right is equal, ie. you could have "No $GROUP served" and "$GROUP only" shops side by side.

Personally, one of my dreams is to discriminate against a Libertarian in an economic transaction simply because of their political affiliation. In theory, they should be supportive of my position, since property rights are absolute. In practice, I think they would squeal like a stuck pig. I have a strong hunch that no Libertarian can conceive that they would be excluded from anything because of personal prejudice.

Now, that would be a funny & cool thing to do! A true believer should actually agree with your right to choose who are you doing business with, yet I think his reaction would be more like throwing a fit with "You hate libertarians? Then I don't want to do business with you anyway!"

The solution is simple. (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497268)

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. (4, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497380)

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.

OK, this is dissappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497428)

I thought it would be about a constitutional right to keep and bear DDOS systems and pen test tools.

Governments taught me (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38497442)

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:Governments taught me (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497570)

"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 help, but firearms are basic to getting in the game.

I suddenly want one! (1)

Pawnn (1708484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38497914)

I never wanted to buy any xbox avatar items before. Always seemed a little too close to playing dress-up. But I suddenly feel like I should buy one of these! Is that weird? I wonder if sales will go up this week. And if they do, will MS unban the virtual guns or possibly come up with new tricks to create scarcity.

Re:I suddenly want one! (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498188)

I also have a feeling that this is a marketing ploy. If they really had a concern with exposing minors to violence, they would put in an "if" statement in there to only display guns to those xbox users who are old enough to play videogames featuring said guns (controlling that would be up to parents correctly configuring parental controls). Seems like a moneygrab to me.

This is just stuid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38498038)

This is just stupid. why are we even arguing about guns in an online virtual world.. a criminal doesn't care about the so called regulation on where he can and cannot carry a weapon. so the honest man whom enters a bank complying with all rules gets shot and killed by those who don't follow the rules...... what if.... every single person carried a gun?... would these retarded criminals then want to rob anything/anyone? nope. so.. you hippies and your anti gun pro censorship pro SOPA ECT ECT. you need to realize the 10 people whom agree with you. there are 1000 people whom are placing the palm of their hand and placing it to their forehead. its called face palm. followed subsequently by the phrase "I don't want to live on this planet anymore". its digital and it can't hurt you so who cares... your spending money on something dumb when people have cancer, Ethiopian people can't find a cheeseburger anywhere, and high school seniors in America can't spell.

Think of the CHILDREN! (1)

DnaK (1306859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498106)

This will really help teach kids guns are bad while they play call of duty! Just think of the children won't you you heartless bastards?

insanity (1)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498130)

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 give you the right to own things that look like firearms, it gives you the right to own things that are firearms. Very important difference.

I hate it when people haven't read Korzybski.

Who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38498390)

It's an avatar, it has nothing to do with games.

Spitwads or rubber bands? (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 2 years ago | (#38498538)

So what will gamers use to battle each other, spitwads and rubber bands?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?