NRA Likens Videogames to "the Filthiest Form of Pornography"

[Therumancer]

I personally believe that people have the right to decide what happens in their own back yard, and are the best ones at choosing what they want to do. 99% of the social issues out there are things that should be resolved on an area by area basis, based on what the majority of people in the areas want. Your typical citizen can do a lot more to influance his town council, than Washington DC. What the majority of people want in each area, is what they do, and of course on a local level that can change as the attitudes of the people do. Done properly this means people are likely to wind up entering communities with those who happen to be like minded. It would take a real train wreck of a person to not fit in anywhere, and really that in of itself shows the person as the problem in the unlikely event that it was to happen.

To be honest with you, I could really give a flying leap if some town decides to ban video games locally or whatever. If that's what the people there want, more power to them and their ignorance, that's part of being in a free country. Just don't bother the people in the next town over, which is usually not a problem when it comes to this kind of thing.

To me 90% of the problem is that the Federal Goverment shouldn't be involved in issues like this, setting policies on things like media and what should be acceptable, or not acceptable, or whatever else. That's for the people themselves to decide. We're The United States, not The American Empire, each state is supposed to be pretty autonomous and largely made up of collections of fairly autonomous towns, bouroughs, etc... Pretty much any issue you can think of is better handled at a state or local level, as well as allowing differant groups to do differant things so they don't wind up needing to come to blows over it. 99% of the big issues, are big issues because of attempts to introduce sweeping legislature that will force everyone to follow ad accept it.

But having a federal government also makes it possible for people and products to easily move between the states and different areas, and companies to work on different states as well. If those different areas would have different legistlation, you'd need to restrict people's ability to move, or your laws would be useless.

And how about things that have far-reaching consequences? "It's totally legal in our town to dump toxic waste on this area, after it leaks to your area, it's your problem."

I do agree that a lot of issues should be tackled on a more local level, but not most legal issues.

And people aren't going to move easily another area that suits more to their needs, they have family and friends, and especially children aren't going to just leave their families and move to area that is more friendly to their sexual orientation or whatever.

If you're not happy with how the US is run, why don't you move to a country that more suits to your needs?

Well, the issue comes down to what this country is and how it's supposed to be run. Hence the major conflict between Republicans and Democrats. I by the same token can point to the intent of the founding fathers and say that anyone who doesn't want to live as I present should get out and go to a country with a strong central goverment. The US having been founded as "United States" specifically to get away from that. This fight isn't likely to be resolved any time in the near future however, especially not over the internets.

Honestly, I have a feeling we're liable to see a civil war before too long as well, simply because the US has been divided along these lines too closely, for too long. Dubbya got two terms by a hairds breadth, now Obama has gotten two by the same margin. Things have been getting increasingly belligerant and non-functional. Give it a decade or so (it won't happen over the next four years) and one side or the other are going to pull out the guns to save the country. In absolute terms The Republicans would be right given the original principles of the country's founding, but at the same token with nearly half the population being far more federal in their point of view (and in many cases outright socialist) arguements for an entirely new goverment being formed in place of the old one can be made. Something could change, but without a clear majority, this is going to get worse if the deadlock remains.

That said, technically, as the very name of the country says, local and state empowerment are the way things are supposed to work, and one of the central principles the whole nation was founded other. Those who disagree with that are the actual intruders (so to speak) who are trying to change things, and would most appropriatly be expected to go somewhere else due to being disatistified with the basic principles of the country. Not wanting to do this, especially with nowhere else to go (given everyplace nice on the planet is inhabited), this are just going to get nastier.

To answer your questions more accuratly though, there is a degree of common sense involved in this, especially seeing as the states are allied against outside threats. Deciding to dump toxic waste into other people's back yards and such generally isn't going to happen because the favor can also be returned. What's more cases of extreme conflict like that were among the few cases where the federal goverment, acting for all the other states, might be able to intervene. It's not supposed to be acting as a true central authority that lays down the law though, acting mostly to deal with cases where the rare inter-state conflict on that level intrudes on the well being of the other states. Likewise all the states want to be able to trade and so on, so common interest again prevents truely high profile conflicts. Things functioned this way perfectly well for a very long time, and still do to a degree, as the federal goverment is
hardly all powerful, it's just more powerful than it should be.

 

[Lieju]

To answer your questions more accuratly though, there is a degree of common sense involved in this, especially seeing as the states are allied against outside threats. Deciding to dump toxic waste into other people's back yards and such generally isn't going to happen because the favor can also be returned.

Not necessarily. First of all, not all areas would have the same kind of industry, and geography is different.
For a simple example, let's say there are two towns alongside the river. The ones upstream dump their waste in the river, which then carries it downstream. Even if the other town doesn't have laws against dumping, they can't return the favor by doing the same.
This kind of a thing happens all the time, even on an international scale, and in my opinion, there should be more laws restricting such things. I think you should be held reposnsible for what you do. If your actions only have an effect on your close environment, then it makes sense for the local legistlation to govern it. Similarly, if you only hurt yourself, why involve law at all?
No US state is self-sustained, they have an effect on the rest of the union, and the rest of the planet.
But then again, the welfare of the 1st world is based on taking advantage of the developing countries.

What's more cases of extreme conflict like that were among the few cases where the federal goverment, acting for all the other states, might be able to intervene. It's not supposed to be acting as a true central authority that lays down the law though, acting mostly to deal with cases where the rare inter-state conflict on that level intrudes on the well being of the other states. Likewise all the states want to be able to trade and so on, so common interest again prevents truely high profile conflicts. Things functioned this way perfectly well for a very long time, and still do to a degree, as the federal goverment is
hardly all powerful, it's just more powerful than it should be.

The founding fathers also founded the country that had slavery and where the majority of the population had no right to vote.
What people who lived on a different time wanted is a poor reason to do anything.
They lived in a different kind of country with far different technology.
For example, is there at this time a risk that the British have too much influence and need to be driven away with guns?

As for your prediction of civil war, I think it depends on whether there will be an outside threat. If there is, I think it's far more likely they will stick together.

 

[punipunipyo]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! The same people who brings the weapons to the murder's hand is now pointing his triggering finger to a culture that have nothing to do with this tragedy?

other than Mortal Combat (nature of being an arcade where M-rated game on an easy access of a under age player), other titles are NOT a valid argument, because they are rated and NOT FOR KIDS TO PLAY!~ if (and we all know that it's NOT) a kid played GTA, and go bananas the next day and gun down people, we SHOULD ask WHY/HOW HE OBTAIN THAT GUN? and HOW DID HE GET TO PLAY A M-RATED GAME? and not asking WHY IS THIS M-Rated game made? (fantasy, as if game hypnoses people to turn them in to murdering zombies)

Sorry for the kids, sorry for the parents that the media cares for the murder and HIS household, HIS life style, HIS affairs, then the victims' families and friends... seeing your friend get shot to death right before your very eyes, as a minor... the trauma they will carry through their lives... they will never live their lives the same way anymore... we should start a found raiser or something for them...

 

[gravian]

a proud history of treating trespassers or burglars as nothing more than vermin to be blown away

Actually, I'm quite proud we have that outlook.

One too many times where tresspassers and burglars rape or torture the families within homes has made us, you know, less than sympathetic to the poor oppressed burglars of the world.

And yet people wonder why gun massacres keep on happening... Must be the video games desensitizing the youth and making them think of bullies and people who threaten you as nothing more than the evil baddies who need to be shot because that's the only language they understand. What else could it be, in a country with such a heavily regulated death penalty, where it can take years for a criminal to be sentenced to death, and with such high regard internationally for basic human dignity and rights?

I've got a question for you. About how far would I have to go onto your property before I become just a bug, something to be mindlessly squashed? About three feet? Six? Because it seems to me that no matter what they look like any intruders to you obviously aren't really human, and they obviously don't deserve the right to a fair trail by jury like anyone else. I mean, what gives you the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner, to dispense whatever so-called justice as you see fit on your property, even if the intruders aren't threatening anyone or even running away? Shooting in self-defense, yes, I can understand that. But not coldly shooting someone running away, with zero threat to you or anyone.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

ITT: People who use the NRA to represent all Americans, and discuss why America is the worst country in the world. Rather than, you know, looking at the NRA as a group that is about as representative of the average American as PETA.