Congress May Take Action On Video Game Violence

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Aventus wrote:

You can't argue fiction or any other firm second amendment believer. They see a different coyntry than we do.

But what I'm saying has more to do with plain old common sense as oppose to how one view their country. The belief some of these people have about deterring a tyrannical government through the right to bare arms is pure horse shit and they know it (unless they're that dumb).... The government is already tyrannical in sooooo many ways and none of these pro-gun advocates has yet to form a militia to stop government corruption....They shake their angry fist at the government instead...lol..

Aventus · **Posted:** Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:53 pm

BuDo wrote:

Aventus wrote:

You can't argue fiction or any other firm second amendment believer. They see a different coyntry than we do.

But what I'm saying has more to do with plain old common sense as oppose to how one view their country. The belief some of these people have about deterring a tyrannical government through the right to bare arms is pure horse shit and they know it (unless they're that dumb).... The government is already tyrannical in sooooo many ways and none of these pro-gun advocates has yet to form a militia to stop government corruption....They shake their angry fist at the government instead...lol..

So you figured it out.

Fiction · **Posted:** Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:10 pm

BuDo wrote:

Aventus wrote:

You can't argue fiction or any other firm second amendment believer. They see a different coyntry than we do.

But what I'm saying has more to do with plain old common sense as oppose to how one view their country. The belief some of these people have about deterring a tyrannical government through the right to bare arms is pure horse shit and they know it (unless they're that dumb).... The government is already tyrannical in sooooo many ways and none of these pro-gun advocates has yet to form a militia to stop government corruption....They shake their angry fist at the government instead...lol..

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Fiction wrote:

BuDo wrote:

Aventus wrote:

You can't argue fiction or any other firm second amendment believer. They see a different coyntry than we do.

But what I'm saying has more to do with plain old common sense as oppose to how one view their country. The belief some of these people have about deterring a tyrannical government through the right to bare arms is pure horse shit and they know it (unless they're that dumb).... The government is already tyrannical in sooooo many ways and none of these pro-gun advocates has yet to form a militia to stop government corruption....They shake their angry fist at the government instead...lol..

lol..what’s the matter fiction? lol... Of course you realize I don't mean all gun wielding americans should just take on the government over a perceived and or indirect form of tyranny... But even you have to admit that claiming that your gun will prevent the US government from locking down your community with military force is highly preposterous… Surely you can’t argue with that..

Fiction · **Posted:** Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:05 am

BuDo wrote:

Fiction wrote:

lol..what’s the matter fiction? lol... Of course you realize I don't mean all gun wielding americans should just take on the government over a perceived and or indirect form of tyranny... But even you have to admit that claiming that your gun will prevent the US government from locking down your community with military force is highly preposterous… Surely you can’t argue with that..

Your argument is, if I may, that we should give up our right to own guns, because our government is already too tyrannical to stop, therefor we do not need guns. :palm:

Mmmm I'm gonna love watching that logic in action for the rest of the Bill of Rights, the government has already shit on... :palm:

Your answer to bigotry is more bigotry right?

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Fiction wrote:

BuDo wrote:

Fiction wrote:

lol..what’s the matter fiction? lol... Of course you realize I don't mean all gun wielding americans should just take on the government over a perceived and or indirect form of tyranny... But even you have to admit that claiming that your gun will prevent the US government from locking down your community with military force is highly preposterous… Surely you can’t argue with that..

Your argument is, if I may, that we should give up our right to own guns, because our government is already too tyrannical to stop, therefor we do not need guns. :palm:

Mmmm I'm gonna love watching that logic in action for the rest of the Bill of Rights, the government has already shit on... :palm:

Your answer to bigotry is more bigotry right?

Nope..no where in my posts did I say you should give up your guns...go back and check... I am just directly attacking one of the retarded premise under which some of your colleagues wishes to keep those guns.... I even said in an earlier post that holding the position of personal protection as a reason for keeping guns makes more sense.... Just not the dumb one that it can prevent a tyrannical take over...

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

*BlackFox wrote:

Why People Fear Guns

Quote:

With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over the years, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to surveys (one I conducted for 2002 for my book, "The Bias Against Guns," and three earlier academic surveys by different researchers published in such journals as the Journal of Criminal Justice) there are about two million defensive gun uses) each year ;

This is total horseshit, and has been debunked too many times for me to bother writing an explanation;
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer

BuDo wrote:

The government of the united states has one of the most lethal armed forces on earth designed to stop and crush international threats who are also lethal in their own right....So how does a pawn shop/store bought dumb down AR15 or pistol gonna prevent a tyrannical government?....

They don't only have semi automatic play toys, they also have tanks that they can get with proper certification from the tyrannical regime!! I mean, don't you know a guy that fixes tanks in his free time? I thought every warm blooded patriotic American knew one, 'cause those connections are vital when the regime becomes tyrannical.
You must be a socialist/communist/fascist/muslim/tyrant/antichrist/sheep

Aventus · **Posted:** Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:32 am

Did you guys not read what I said, resistance is futile. The almighty fiction has spoken and all that oppose him are just ignorant on the subject.

Fiction · **Posted:** Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:52 pm

BuDo wrote:

Nope..no where in my posts did I say you should give up your guns...go back and check... I am just directly attacking one of the retarded premise under which some of your colleagues wishes to keep those guns.... I even said in an earlier post that holding the position of personal protection as a reason for keeping guns makes more sense.... Just not the dumb one that it can prevent a tyrannical take over...

Excuse me. So we should be allowed to own guns, but not for the reason of stopping a tyrannical government.

@ the drop and aventus.. What exactly are your arguments? We shouldn't ban guns, but there is no reason someone should own a "big" gun, and we should do stricter background checks? Where the hell is EvGa when you need him... lol You guys wanna go buy a gun with me this weekend? I can show you all the shit I have to fill out.. Then we can go get you all a permit to actually carry it with you legally... but it will take at least 3 months... Can I have a conversation with ppl that actually have experience with guns, or know anything about the gun laws, and not just what they see on tv, or read on their favorite biased liberal outlet? I grew up in Houston, I know the legal and illegal side of guns. My 14 y/o friends could get illegal guns.(Notice the word illegal, means it's already banned, so it shouldn't exist) Now that I'm an adult, I carry just in case their is one of those illegal gun owners waiting to rob or kill me. As well as to go stop tyrannical governments all across the world!

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Fiction wrote:

BuDo wrote:

Nope..no where in my posts did I say you should give up your guns...go back and check... I am just directly attacking one of the retarded premise under which some of your colleagues wishes to keep those guns.... I even said in an earlier post that holding the position of personal protection as a reason for keeping guns makes more sense.... Just not the dumb one that it can prevent a tyrannical take over...

Excuse me. So we should be allowed to own guns, but not for the reason of stopping a tyrannical government.

Again no...Simply...If you're gonna come with reasons as to why you should have guns don't come up with retarded ones...It doesn't help you're position...it just reinforces the stereotype of rednecks and hillbillies...

Fiction · **Posted:** Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:03 pm

BuDo wrote:

Fiction wrote:

BuDo wrote:

Nope..no where in my posts did I say you should give up your guns...go back and check... I am just directly attacking one of the retarded premise under which some of your colleagues wishes to keep those guns.... I even said in an earlier post that holding the position of personal protection as a reason for keeping guns makes more sense.... Just not the dumb one that it can prevent a tyrannical take over...

Excuse me. So we should be allowed to own guns, but not for the reason of stopping a tyrannical government.

Again no...Simply...If you're gonna come with reasons as to why you should have guns don't come up with retarded ones...It doesn't help you're position...it just reinforces the stereotype of rednecks and hillbillies...

Have you even study anything to do with this subject? Or is this just your worldly idealistic "common sense"? I've noticed this isn't the only thing you've inserted your ignorant opinion on something, and tried to argue your way. Didn't someone lacking sleep already go off on you about that?

Anyways, of course here on an online forum where the majority of the members do not own guns or understand the reason for a 2nd amendment in America, I'm going to seem like the fringe. So forgive for not getting your" common sense "

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

I dont get what your issue is with what I am saying. It is common sense yes so why refute it by trying to belittle me. No need to argue about what my tendencies are surrounding the way I discuss things. Just focus on exactly what I am saying now... Or is that you are so married to your ideals/beliefs/position on this subject that you can't objectively observe "common sense".

Fiction · **Posted:** Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:02 pm

The issue I have is that you are talking about a complex issue, and saying it's common sense to know that owning a gun doesn't deter a tyrannical government. Which you have absolutely no clue.

This government might be tyrannical in it's ways, but that should be any reason to say, "well the 2nd amendment is useless" It's the natural progression of government to become more tyrannical. The 2nd amendment is just another check on the government's power. We could be in a worse situation without it. Pretty much my argument is, your lack of understanding of the issue itself, and lack of understanding of what constitutes common sense. (which has been so deluded)

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

There is nothing complicated about the basic common sense being discussed here. You can go on and on about the complexities behind the 2 amendment and go off on tangents about the symbolic nature for which it truly represents till your blue in the face.... It won't change the fact that, in the literal sense, civilian weaponry is no match against a government army takeover...You have yet to disprove this as common sense but instead just implying that it isnt...

Yes if we do look at this subject in a broader light it will become complicated as there are many things to observe but that's not my query when I started off. I was merely observing this singular factor/idea/belief that civilian having guns can prevent a government takeover....Yes the idea behind this thinking goes far beyond the literal meaning as it did in the past but sooo many of your colleagues today cling to the meaning literally which is where my concern is.

Fiction · **Posted:** Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:34 pm

BuDo wrote:

There is nothing complicated about the basic common sense being discussed here. You can go on and on about the complexities behind the 2 amendment and go off on tangents about the symbolic nature for which it truly represents till your blue in the face.... It won't change the fact that, in the literal sense, civilian weaponry is no match against a government army takeover...You have yet to disprove this as common sense but instead just implying that it isnt...

... A government Army take over? I'm talking about the government. The Army isn't something we have to worry about. They will not fight against the very ppl they are protecting... Really, your common sense is out there. This isn't Asia.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Fiction wrote:

BuDo wrote:

There is nothing complicated about the basic common sense being discussed here. You can go on and on about the complexities behind the 2 amendment and go off on tangents about the symbolic nature for which it truly represents till your blue in the face.... It won't change the fact that, in the literal sense, civilian weaponry is no match against a government army takeover...You have yet to disprove this as common sense but instead just implying that it isnt...

... A government Army take over? I'm talking about the government. The Army isn't something we have to worry about. They will not fight against the very ppl they are protecting... Really, your common sense is out there. This isn't Asia.

They wont have to fight...And you're right nor would they want to..... You will just have to do what they say and hand over your firearms on behalf of the government who ordered them to do so....

I see where this is going..or what you are tryin to get at...but lets hear more of it from you..

Bartic · **Posted:** Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:40 pm

Fiction wrote:

... A government Army take over? I'm talking about the government. The Army isn't something we have to worry about. They will not fight against the very ppl they are protecting... Really, your common sense is out there. This isn't Asia.

Yeah, sure.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Bartic wrote:

Fiction wrote:

... A government Army take over? I'm talking about the government. The Army isn't something we have to worry about. They will not fight against the very ppl they are protecting... Really, your common sense is out there. This isn't Asia.

Yeah, sure.

My thoughts as well.... So many governments are causing their people to suffer to some degree...even in the US...So I don't know why he'd be suprised if the US government used military force on its people to get what it thinks is best for its people...

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

Well, Pretty Interesting Read...

Quote:

Legal Authority to Use Federal Troops to Enforce the Law

The Insurrection Act is the most important legal authority for the President to authorize the use of federal troops to enforce the law. The Insurrection Act (there is really no single 'Insurrection Act' per se but this name has been applied collectively to the four statutes noted below) consists of four statutes enacted at different times for different reasons that, when considered as a whole, provide the power that Presidents have used many times as the legal basis for using troops to enforce the law. The four sections of the act are as follows:

Title 10, Section 331 was enacted in 1792 in response to challenges to the taxing power of the federal government. It allows the President, at the request of a governor or state legislature, to put down an insurrection by calling into federal service sufficient militia to "suppress the insurrection."
Title 10, Section 332 was enacted in 1861 at the outset of the Civil War. It allows the President to use the armed forces to enforce the laws or suppress a rebellion whenever, in his opinion, unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages or rebellion against the authority of the United States make it impractical to enforce the laws using the course of judicial proceedings.
Title 10, Section 333 was enacted in 1869 during the Reconstruction Era. It allows the President to use the armed forces or militia to respond to insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracies that prevent a state government from enforcing the laws.
Title 10, Section 334 was enacted in 1861. It prescribes that the President shall issue a proclamation calling on insurgents to disperse before using the militia or armed forces to enforce the law.

Read More Here

TheKnight · **Joined:** Apr 2009 **Posts:** 3067 **Location:**

Wouldn't it be better to ban guns in real life rather than in video games? Just a thought.

(Not entirely ban of course but at least do some better background checks and limitations to people who want to buy a gun)

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

^ Of course, that's much better!.. Than wasting time on video games. lulz

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

Only people that have guns should have any say on gun control. Similar to how only people who have vaginas should have any say on abortions.

Apparently, in Fiction's world, a government takeover means a bunch of 50 year old bureaucrats and 60year old politicians blazing in with their semi-automatic rifles, so the common people can resist them.
The Army would never oppress the people, as we have learned from world history, no oppressive government has ever used a strong military to oppress the people. After all, they don't take orders from the government.

Seriously, just go back to watching Fox & Friends with a zombie thomas jefferson.

Silkroad Online Forums

Congress May Take Action On Video Game Violence

Who is online