Jim & Yahtzee's Rhymedown Spectacular: Games, Games, Everywhere.

[Vhite]

I am indie gun developer and find this offensive.

Make a gun that shoots shurikens and lightning please!

No, ninjas and Norse gods aren't retro or pop enough. I am artist, come back when you want Tron dupstep gun.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Fantastic episode.

Jim makes an excellent point that indie games work so hard to be original, they become samey.

Not only was Yahtzee's dark and quite fun, but we ALSO get to see lots of silly people misunderstanding his point and whining about how guns don't cause violence.

It's like the perfect video.

 

[mike1921]

Cars have an important transportation function, knives have an important culinary function. You can't compare a weapon to a practical tool. Guns make it easier to kill larger amounts of people and serve such a small function in civilized life. It's reasonable to require a background check for them, and to limit clip size so that you can only kill so many people with one if you're a murderer. If you're going to say this is about people wanting to ban all guns then point me to one American politican, they have to be at the level of a governor,congressman, president/VP or cabinet member, who supports such a thing. I have never heard rhetoric of banning all guns from any one important besides people using it as a strawman.

If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.
As for the car comment, why not lower the speed limit to 15mph? That way, less people would die in traffic related accidents. Even more interesting, as arriving on time is not a right given by the Constitution but merely a luxury, this should be relatively easy to do.

Yes it does. America's way too devoted to blindly sucking the cocks of the founding fathers. The constitution can be amended for a reason, because the founding fathers realized they're not perfect and don't know what technology will look like in hundreds of years. As the second amendment specifically mentions that the purpose of giving people the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, which is a much different statement back then than it is now. Back then guns were inefficient, could kill much less people with a lone madman, and the military was pretty much just dudes with same guns (although navies and cannons existed). The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people. To use the second amendment in this day and age is to not understand its purpose.

But really, isn't interpreting what was meant by the constitution the job of the supreme court? Wouldn't them looking at the clear intention of the second amendment and saying that it doesn't apply to people who are a danger to society enough?

"It's unconstitutional" is a valid reason for why a law shouldn't pass at the moment, but it should be seen as an outright demand to think "should it be unconstitutional?" and if not to fix it. It shouldn't be seen as a "oh, well then let's give up".

Because that would cripple us in a major way? Also, arriving on time isn't a luxury. Our economy sort of depends on us having a work force actually....working.

 

[mike1921]

Cars have an important transportation function, knives have an important culinary function. You can't compare a weapon to a practical tool. Guns make it easier to kill larger amounts of people and serve such a small function in civilized life. It's reasonable to require a background check for them, and to limit clip size so that you can only kill so many people with one if you're a murderer. If you're going to say this is about people wanting to ban all guns then point me to one American politican, they have to be at the level of a governor,congressman, president/VP or cabinet member, who supports such a thing. I have never heard rhetoric of banning all guns from any one important besides people using it as a strawman.

If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.
As for the car comment, why not lower the speed limit to 15mph? That way, less people would die in traffic related accidents. Even more interesting, as arriving on time is not a right given by the Constitution but merely a luxury, this should be relatively easy to do.

Yes it does. America's way too devoted to blindly sucking the cocks of the founding fathers. The constitution can be amended for a reason, because the founding fathers realized they're not perfect and don't know what technology will look like in hundreds of years. As the second amendment specifically mentions that the purpose of giving people the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, which is a much different statement back then than it is now. Back then guns were inefficient, could kill much less people with a lone madman, and the military was pretty much just dudes with same guns (although navies and cannons existed). The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people. To use the second amendment in this day and age is to not understand its purpose.

If there was an open rebellion there's a possibility that the rebels could get foreign aide. Hell we got in the revolutionary war and that helped.

So the foreign aid would include things that would actually make it viable to fight the US military...but it won't include the right guns?

 

[furai47]

Yes it does. America's way too devoted to blindly sucking the cocks of the founding fathers. The constitution can be amended for a reason, because the founding fathers realized they're not perfect and don't know what technology will look like in hundreds of years. As the second amendment specifically mentions that the purpose of giving people the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, which is a much different statement back then than it is now. Back then guns were inefficient, could kill much less people with a lone madman, and the military was pretty much just dudes with same guns (although navies and cannons existed). The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people. To use the second amendment in this day and age is to not understand its purpose.

But really, isn't interpreting what was meant by the constitution the job of the supreme court? Wouldn't them looking at the clear intention of the second amendment and saying that it doesn't apply to people who are a danger to society enough?

"It's unconstitutional" is a valid reason for why a law shouldn't pass at the moment, but it should be seen as an outright demand to think "should it be unconstitutional?" and if not to fix it. It shouldn't be seen as a "oh, well then let's give up".

Because that would cripple us in a major way? Also, arriving on time isn't a luxury. Our economy sort of depends on us having a work force actually....working.

Hence why it's called the second _amendment_. Look a few post above you, I've no qualms with the government going through with amending the constitution. But whatever law they want to pass they have to do in form of an amendment, as any other is automatically squashed by the second. If it can be circumvented this way, I see no reason why the first, fourth or the fourteenth can't be in a similar fashion. And yet people always get uppity when those are at stake.

By the way, you do realise that the US has its military and that there's also a standing army (a "militia" of sorts) of each individual state, which must by law be supplied with the exact same hardware that the military is, right? People get guns, rifles, shotguns etc. and the standing army gets military hardware so as to resist the military should the government decide to use it on its people. This is what the second amendment also protects.

It most certainly would be enough for the Supreme court to do so. So if it's such a clear cut case, why haven't they?

See my first paragraph.

You can leave early. If 300 people last year are worth banning assault rifles or passing illegal laws, then surely 30000 people are worth lowering the speed limit. Especially since the former is a right codified (not given) by the US Constitution.

 

[Fiairflair]

Living in a country without guns, it is hard to understand why Americans are so tolerant of them. Between 1986 and 1996 we had 11 mass shootings in Australia. In 1996 there was a shooting in the tourist town of Port Arthur. 35 people were killed. Following the event the government legislated popular gun control laws and a gun buyback scheme.
Since then there have been no mass shootings in Australia. Neither was there a torrent of angry drivers running people over, no inundation of wannabe Samurais attacking people with swords or knives. There was simply a lot less death.

What sort of person wants the right to have a killing machine?
Why don?t Americans relate guns to gun-related crime?

 

[mike1921]

It most certainly would be enough for the Supreme court to do so. So if it's such a clear cut case, why haven't they?

In the words of Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
That seems like a pretty clear cut case of them saying it is constitutional to limit firearms according to certain conditions. If they go out of their way to say "yea it's fine to keep the guns away from felons" ain't it safe to assume that they also would be supportive of being able to check if they're felons?

You can leave early. If 300 people last year are worth banning assault rifles or passing illegal laws, then surely 30000 people are worth lowering the speed limit. Especially since the former is a right codified (not given) by the US Constitution.

Except banning assault rifles harms no one, lowering the speed limit harms everyone.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

I think that Alfred Hitchcock summarizes it best:

 

[furai47]

In the words of Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
That seems like a pretty clear cut case of them saying it is constitutional to limit firearms according to certain conditions. If they go out of their way to say "yea it's fine to keep the guns away from felons" ain't it safe to assume that they also would be supportive of being able to check if they're felons?

Cool. Now you have to both propose and ratify this as an amendment, getting majority support of Congress and the States and you can start enforcing it by law. Easy peasy.

Except banning assault rifles harms no one, lowering the speed limit harms everyone.

Assault rifles are already regulated, there's many hoops to be jumped through to get legal ownership. The ones you can acquire more easily are semi-automatic, which =/= assault rifle.
By the way, a lot of people enjoy shooting guns. Do you think those people would not disagree with banning semi-automatics?

 

[deathjavu]

In the words of Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
That seems like a pretty clear cut case of them saying it is constitutional to limit firearms according to certain conditions. If they go out of their way to say "yea it's fine to keep the guns away from felons" ain't it safe to assume that they also would be supportive of being able to check if they're felons?

Cool. Now you have to both propose and ratify this as an amendment, getting majority support of Congress and the States and you can start enforcing it by law. Easy peasy.

Except banning assault rifles harms no one, lowering the speed limit harms everyone.

Assault rifles are already regulated, there's many hoops to be jumped through to get legal ownership. The ones you can acquire more easily are semi-automatic, which =/= assault rifle.
By the way, a lot of people enjoy shooting guns. Do you think those people would not disagree with banning semi-automatics?

Except for the part where the NRA, a group explicitly formed to further the interests of gun salesmen (a biased group in this discussion if ever there was one), has a very well funded lobbying group that makes passing any such law impossible regardless of public support. It's been proven time and time again that public interest in a law being passed cannot make it so, much less something trivial like common sense.

Anyways it's a bit late to jump to the defense of the US consitution now, the US been wiping their asses with it since it was printed. Unreasonable search and seizure has been the order of the day from the moment any new intelligence agency was formed. Cruel and unusual punishment takes place on people who were never given trials. US citizens can be killed without trial. The US judiciary is a political branch of the government with the same party divisions as congress. Free speech is heavily restricted, both in the media and in public. Protesters are often evicted from public locations. Laws with the purpose or effect of limiting voting availability are passed all the time. Disenfranchisement is legal and common.

Seriously, at this point it's more butt-stains than ink. Time to flush it.

 

[Mr Companion]

For those saying guns are not to blame. Imagine a guy goes nuts, there is an automatic gun, he kills a crowd of 34 people before being gunned down himself. Now imagine there is not a gun, but a knife. He might be "lucky" to kill one or two. Guns don't kill people but they do make it 50 times easier.

 

[MisterColeman]

I'll throw my dumb opinion into the mix.

... Changed my mind. Good poems.

 

[JLink]

The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people.

I think these people would disagree with that:

 

[Valanthe]

I don't know if anyone else pointed it out... But I have this hunch that Jim's 'rose-tinted glasses' were a very deliberate choice.

As to the poems themselves, both were great, as always, I love these videos

 

[varmintx]

I think that Alfred Hichcock summarizes it best:

Spoiler

That was awesome. Haven't watched that show since I was a little kid, but that makes me want to go find it on TVLand or the like.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Why is this still an issue? Say what you want about how guns don't really kill people, but don't think you can turn around and claim that video games and the media in general are to blame.
In fact, you know what? I know EXACTLY what to blame. You see that guy? The guy with the gun who plays video games and watches iCarly? If he goes mad, I say we just blame HIM. It's that fucking simple. Hell, blame it on shitty upbringing if you must.
The fact is, crazy people are crazy, and they will find a way, with or without guns. If anything, guns just make it easier to kill lots of people, even if they aren't actually whispering evil thoughts into your ears.