Reply
Shinra Executive
Registered: 01/09/2010
Online
32453 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

[ Edited ]
Jan 14, 2013

PapaWarlock wrote:

BRIT-KO wrote:

Extremely offensive, really, why?

 

The picture was taken from Facebook, someone else posted it & I shared it, it made me smile, it made others smile too, most people who have come across it have also smiled, they have not taken it as seriously as some have, chill out people, it was a bit of humor.


I find it offensive because it's insulting the PotUS. I don't care if people like him or hate him. Insulting the President and his wife is extremely offensive to me. At least have respect for the office. You don't have to agree with me, but I find it be very offensive.

 

I've seen it posted on Facebook too and I tell my friends I find it offensive on there as well. No it's not the worst thing I've ever seen said about him, but still there should be at least a basic level of respect for the Office if nothing else.

 

I apologize if it seems childish or over the top. It's just how I view things.


You may or may not already know this but if you've seen some of my other posts around the Forums you will know I'm not a 'fan' of Barack Obama, nor do I respect him as a President, with that being said I will always, always respect the office & what it stands for.

 

You may have also seen another Thread on these Forums, actually I think it was in the Off Topic area that asked something like 'if you were invited to the Whitehouse would you go?', I & most sensible people all said yes, some of us, me included explained that we were as i have just said not 'fans' of the current incumbant but to turn down the opportunity of a chance to see the Whitehouse would be madness.

 

You see I have respect for the office too Papa, I don't agree with you about the picture being offensive at all, I find it rather funny & thought it pretty appropriate to place here when we're discussing gun control, the NRA etc. it was as I said in my original response 'a bit of humor', you don't find anything humorous in it, that's fine, I'll apologize right back at you for offending you, but don't accuse me of not having respect for the office he holds, & that is what you're really doing, because I most certainly do.

Message 111 of 173 (139 Views)
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 11/06/2011
Offline
4421 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

Jan 14, 2013

BRIT-KO wrote:

Extremely offensive, really, why?

 

The picture was taken from Facebook, someone else posted it & I shared it, it made me smile, it made others smile too, most people who have come across it have also smiled, they have not taken it as seriously as some have, chill out people, it was a bit of humor.


I have to laugh when people take offense to Obama Bashing.

 

Yes, I voted for Bush both times.

 

Yes, I agree he made a mess of things by the end of his second term.

 

See, at least I can admit it.  

 

Those who have been bamboozled and hypnotized by the pretender in chief, have a hard time when you trash on their woobie.

 

How much crap was on the internet about Bush.  A freaking cartoon sitcom was made to make fun of him.  The Daily show was a regular Bush Bash.  What has (the very not funny) Jon Stewart had to say negative about the current President so far?  How much MERCHANDISE was sold, all in the name of bashing the PotUS when it was Bush.

 

True, those who may have been offended by your post BRIT, may not admit too, or may even be innocent of partaking in any of the old Bush Bashing, but none the less.  Why is it socially accepted by those who did not like him.  The media and almost all forms of literature bashed the PotUS for eight years previous to the new administration, but NOW, it is down right rude and uncalled for?

 

After all, you did not make the pic, as you have pointed out BRIT, and no one has made money off of it either.  This cannot be said of all the Bush Bashing that took place in the past.

 

While it is important to protect the "Office Position", it only highlights the glaring hypocrisy of the current proposed positions on private firearms ownership.  Saying it is OK for the Military, Police, Secret Service, and all other Law Enforcement Agencies to be armed to the teeth, while us simpletons should have no rights to own firearms, is ridiculous.  

 

If they banned Private gun ownership tomorrow, would these agencies reduce the number of armaments they possess?  No, the answer is NO!

 

Yes, the PotUS should be protected by armed guards, but saying guns are not necessary, when your own position dictates they are necessary for your own protection, makes you out to be a CLOWN.

 

I am with you BRIT.  Our First Amendment Right protects us to say how we feel, and allows us to criticize anyone, even the PotUS.  Unless they intend to attack that Amendment after they get done trying to change the Second Amendment.

 

I hear Russia is close to going back to Communist Party Rule.  Perhaps those who don't like open conversations and criticism should see about getting some emigration papers.  Putin will be happy to see that they own no firearms, get no right to speak their mind, and revoke personal freedoms, all in the name of the People's Republic of WHATEVER.

 

Offended?  Please; I am offended that the current administration seeks to bubble wrap my life for me, without any concern for my own wishes and beliefs.  Freedom and Liberty is what makes this Nation great.  Taking away my Freedoms and Liberties in the name of someone else's ideals does not sound like the United States I love.

 

Huzzah BRIT.  HUZZAH!

 

"Live Free or Die"  -General John Stark (New Hampshire State Motto)

 

Moble

 

Message 112 of 173 (136 Views)
Shinra Executive
Registered: 01/09/2010
Online
32453 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

Jan 14, 2013

Well said, you put it far better than I did.

Message 113 of 173 (134 Views)
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 04/18/2007
Offline
11212 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

Jan 14, 2013

BRIT-KO wrote:

PapaWarlock wrote:

BRIT-KO wrote:

Extremely offensive, really, why?

 

The picture was taken from Facebook, someone else posted it & I shared it, it made me smile, it made others smile too, most people who have come across it have also smiled, they have not taken it as seriously as some have, chill out people, it was a bit of humor.


I find it offensive because it's insulting the PotUS. I don't care if people like him or hate him. Insulting the President and his wife is extremely offensive to me. At least have respect for the office. You don't have to agree with me, but I find it be very offensive.

 

I've seen it posted on Facebook too and I tell my friends I find it offensive on there as well. No it's not the worst thing I've ever seen said about him, but still there should be at least a basic level of respect for the Office if nothing else.

 

I apologize if it seems childish or over the top. It's just how I view things.


You may or may not already know this but if you've seen some of my other posts around the Forums you will know I'm not a 'fan' of Barack Obama, nor do I respect him as a President, with that being said I will always, always respect the office & what it stands for.

 

You may have also seen another Thread on these Forums, actually I think it was in the Off Topic area that asked something like 'if you were invited to the Whitehouse would you go?', I & most sensible people all said yes, some of us, me included explained that we were as i have just said not 'fans' of the current incumbant but to turn down the opportunity of a chance to see the Whitehouse would be madness.

 

You see I have respect for the office too Papa, I don't agree with you about the picture being offensive at all, I find it rather funny & thought it pretty appropriate to place here when we're discussing gun control, the NRA etc. it was as I said in my original response 'a bit of humor', you don't find anything humorous in it, that's fine, I'll apologize right back at you for offending you, but don't accuse me of not having respect for the office he holds, & that is what you're really doing, because I most certainly do.


I don't visit the Off Topic section but I do recall you mentioning your lack of respect for the current President. That's why I felt as if it was not just a bash on him but a bash on the Office. While I did not like many of the things Bush Jr did, I refrained from bashing him. For me the Office and the person should be respected regardless of whether a person likes the individual or not. As I said, I'm sorry for misunderstanding the intent. It just wasn't funny to me. It wouldn't be funny to me even if it was someone else like let's say a football star.

 

However as I did mention as well I don't agree with the statement behind this picture either. While the President (and other world leaders and visiting dignitaries) are "protected" by armed guards, a determined individual can still kill them despite the armament surrounding them. The armed Secret Service didn't help Kennedy. Reagan was still shot while surrounded by SS. Some diptard managed to shoot at the White House (during Bush Jr if I haven't mixed up events in my mind.)

 

Being surrounded by guns does not make you safe, as in the case of the Youtube gun  specialist. A determined person can still kill you. It will however deter most people. Again I am not saying guns can not protect people. I am not saying guns by themselves are the problem. That is not my stance. However I think it should be harder for people to get them. Loopholes should be closed.

 

I would never dream of trying to disarm the nation. But there are problems we need to deal with.

Message 114 of 173 (122 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 04/18/2007
Offline
11212 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

Jan 14, 2013

moblesuit75 wrote:

True, those who may have been offended by your post BRIT, may not admit too, or may even be innocent of partaking in any of the old Bush Bashing, but none the less.  Why is it socially accepted by those who did not like him.  The media and almost all forms of literature bashed the PotUS for eight years previous to the new administration, but NOW, it is down right rude and uncalled for?

 

 

 

Yes, the PotUS should be protected by armed guards, but saying guns are not necessary, when your own position dictates they are necessary for your own protection, makes you out to be a CLOWN.

 

I am with you BRIT.  Our First Amendment Right protects us to say how we feel, and allows us to criticize anyone, even the PotUS.  Unless they intend to attack that Amendment after they get done trying to change the Second Amendment.

 

 

 


Bashing the President regardless of who he is or the mistakes he's made should never be considered socially acceptable. I did not bash Bush during his administration, nor do I do so now. 

 

As far as I can tell the President has never said that guns are not necessary. He is not and has never (to my knowledge) made any claim to wanting to eliminate the right of Citizens to bear arms. What is going to happen is stricter gun policies. Not gun elimination. Banning one type of gun will not lead down a "slippery" slope to full blown gun disarmament as so many seem to think.

 

The First Amendment may give people the "right" but with that right comes responsibility. The First Amendment doesn't give people as much Free Speech as they'd like to believe. Try shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater for example. Try making threats of bodily harm to any political leader online and see how long it takes for the Secret Service or FBI to show up to investigate.

Message 115 of 173 (118 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
50159 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

[ Edited ]
Jan 14, 2013

There are tons of strong opinions in both directions and I know I'm not chaging anyone's mind but I will say one thing.

 

I, like many other gun owning Americans, understand that my right to defend myself is a god given right and no government will be allowed to take this right from me.   As the founders of this great nation said:

 

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

My right to defend myself (in this specific discussion through the use of firearms), as guaranteed by the constitution and God, being taken from me is just cause for seperation.

 

And to take this right is destructive to my natural right to defend myself and if a law was put in place to limit this right I feel it is my right and my duty to try and get any law restricting my natural right to self defense abolished.

Message 116 of 173 (110 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 07/02/2009
Offline
6508 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

Jan 14, 2013

BRIT-KO wrote:

Well said, you put it far better than I did.


i have question for  brit ko.  why dont you respect  the president obama.. i dont  see anything he has done wrong during his reign. I have  been  alive for alot of us  president. only 2 that where  any good for governemnt  where clinton and obama. I think reagn wa sok but could  have alot better,  if it wasnt for  tip onell hhis lecgay would be  awful.

 

He hasnt gotten usa into any war. , he;s trying to help the everyday  people, he  for usa enegry not forgien. he promotes usa jobs here  and  help  build them instead send them to  else where..  I  dont understand  why folk dont like  obama, his policies are very good.  better than reagan polices, and the bushes, nixon. ford.  Alot of guys  man.. I think alot fall into media blitz stuff or other resaon sthat be.

 

 if ask me  jr bush was worst presdient  ever  in usa history .he did actually nothing in office for 8 yrs nothing but war he didnt build one program to  help anyone. alot program he signed  where from clintons era. the surplus he got was from clintons economy.    His governemt  almost crashed the usa. Im independant voter ( not meaning indepant party voter) i reserve my vote for best candinate , i go by the man  real worth and  if think any body out  could  do it better than Obama,  i would love for you   to name him/her.

 

  Obama has acted on guns so  many time in  presidental career , more than any other president. I dont  see him balming video games or saying lets raid  the general public cabniets. I heard hims say let do this in a  sensible way, let  bring both side in to tlk and see what best for the public.. He want to restrict high  volume magazine not guns altogether.

 

 

 

 

 

Mcbuttz78

vp-psn legioniaree group.

Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the future

Message 117 of 173 (105 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 09/05/2012
Online
8079 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

[ Edited ]
Jan 14, 2013

Video Games Don't Kill People

FiveFourteen
Ask FiveFourteen,Twitter,Google+
"I am passionate, vigilant, motivated, and I am proud to be a part of the PlayStation Community."
Message 118 of 173 (101 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 11/06/2011
Offline
4421 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

Jan 14, 2013

PapaWarlock wrote:

moblesuit75 wrote:

True, those who may have been offended by your post BRIT, may not admit too, or may even be innocent of partaking in any of the old Bush Bashing, but none the less.  Why is it socially accepted by those who did not like him.  The media and almost all forms of literature bashed the PotUS for eight years previous to the new administration, but NOW, it is down right rude and uncalled for?

 

 

 

Yes, the PotUS should be protected by armed guards, but saying guns are not necessary, when your own position dictates they are necessary for your own protection, makes you out to be a CLOWN.

 

I am with you BRIT.  Our First Amendment Right protects us to say how we feel, and allows us to criticize anyone, even the PotUS.  Unless they intend to attack that Amendment after they get done trying to change the Second Amendment.

 

 

 


Bashing the President regardless of who he is or the mistakes he's made should never be considered socially acceptable. I did not bash Bush during his administration, nor do I do so now. 

 

As far as I can tell the President has never said that guns are not necessary. He is not and has never (to my knowledge) made any claim to wanting to eliminate the right of Citizens to bear arms. What is going to happen is stricter gun policies. Not gun elimination. Banning one type of gun will not lead down a "slippery" slope to full blown gun disarmament as so many seem to think.

 

The First Amendment may give people the "right" but with that right comes responsibility. The First Amendment doesn't give people as much Free Speech as they'd like to believe. Try shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater for example. Try making threats of bodily harm to any political leader online and see how long it takes for the Secret Service or FBI to show up to investigate.


Papa, these are all relevant and valid points.  

 

When I discussed those who previously bashed Bush, I did not intend to indicate you, yourself, did so as well.  I believe you made that clear in your post regarding the respect for the position.  

 

I am merely reflecting on the overall behavior of Pro Obama supporters to date.  The vast majority act as if saying anything negative about him is a SIN.  You can even get called a racist for it, which is completely absurd and ignorant, in and of itself.

 

As far as my own Obama Bashing, I do it in private, and do not share any UN-FACT BASED feeling or beliefs about him, here or anywhere outside my own circle of friends and family.  Aside from me calling him a Clown here, in a rare occurance :smileywink:.  There are those in my family who do not agree with my views, and I respect their views, so long as they respect mine.

 

I do not, however, make a living (Ala Jon Stewart) making fun of the PotUS.  Yet no one stops Stewart from ripping Bush and any Republican, while shining the shoes of his affiliated Party.  I do not watch his show for this reason.  If the show was equally bias, then it would be a different story, possibly.

 

I agree with you on the, respect, aspect of the PotUS.  If elected by the People, then whomever is there to serve, should garner the respect.  The ideals and views of the PotUS, however, do not necessarily need to be agreed with or even respected fully.  I will not get into the Hot Bed discussion over which views and ideals I disagree with at this time, as this issue we are discussing is primarily firearms.

 

As a responsible firearms owner, I WOULD like to see stricter regulations on the purchases and sale of firearms.  I DO believe they are too laxed at this point.  

 

When the current President talks of using Executive Privileged though, the idea that only one type or several types only, of firearms being banned can be called into question.  Executive Privilege allows a PotUS to make WHATEVER decision they desire, with only the Supreme Court to argue, or shoot down the order, post enactment.

 

The slippery slope occurs, when ANY PotUS decides to overrule or even override the Congress of the United States of America, in an effort to forward their OWN ideals, based mostly on knee jerk/emotional decisions.  

 

The PotUS can enact Executive Privilege and ban Automobiles from operating, if he or she so pleased.  It seems absurd, but it is true.  Only the Supreme Court would be able to override this decision, but we all know with what speed they react.  Yes, this example is highly exaggerated, but I just wanted to bring home the actual ramifications of such an action by ANY PotUS.

 

All this being said, I am not fully in the belief that Obama wants to take guns away from everyone.  I have read his views and policies regarding firearms ownership, and he does favor responsible, legal ownership.  I agree with his policies relating to the limitation of imports and exports of firearms; such as, but not limited to Kalishnakov (AK-47) rifles.  I believe stricter policies must be in place to limit the acquisition of firearms, by those who are not mentally fit or have been on the wrong side of the law.

 

 

So I take back a little of what I have said, regarding Obama's outright view on gun ownership.  Perhaps it is not a necessity to own a firearm, but the Right to do so must remain in place.  The Second Amendment exists for the purposes stated in it.  The environment, although evolved, has not changed significantly enough to deem the Amendment useless or even out dated.  To date, Obama has made NO indication of eradicating the Amendment.  Although, precedence is a powerful thing.  An all out ban might never come, but by chipping away, one rifle at a time, it could be accomplished overt time.

 

What is concerning is the threat of Executive Privilege and to what end it may go.  As I have stated, a knee jerk, emotional response can go a long way to modifying the views of anyone; even the PotUS.

 

 

 

As far as the Right to say as I please; there are the obvious, which you have stated, that are not really acceptable, and even illegal.  The First Amendment was modified by sub laws over time.  "yellow Journalism" is now considered slander, or prosecuted for misrepresentation of facts.  Situations such as these are serious, and typically have ramifications.  

 

An OPINION, however is just that.  If in my OPINION, Obama is a CLOWN, then it is just that.  The position of PotUS, is one that I seriously hope he Excels.  It does none of us any good to see Obama fail as PotUS.  In this respect, I have the proper respect.  

 

I do not have to buy into his ideals.  I do not have to agree with his questionable past as being one suitable for the position of PotUS.  As the reputation of MANY PotUSes in the past may be questioned as well.  It is my right to say as I please, so long as it does not hurt (physically or emotionally), or endanger myself or others.  If I have hurt you emotionally for my classification of Obama, then I apologize to you personally, as it was not my intent to hurt your feelings or emotions.  It is merely my opinion, which I doi not apologize for in whole.  I do not agree with everyone on every issue.  That is the beauty of the First Amendment, I don't have to.

 

Anyone who is willing to make a open threat to anyone is a fool for doing so.  Clown, is a descriptive term I choose for my Opinion.  No harm comes from this, nor should it.

 

I respect your opinions Papa, I do.  I have digressed a little in this post regarding the current PotUS's views on firearms control.  I only hope the "fearful" will not be proven correct, and I witness an all out ban and repossession in my lifetime.  

 

I have chosen to own firearms for my own protection and sport (Range Competitions and Hunting).  I do not wish to see them taken from me, all in the name of emotional response.  I can only hope you respect my opinions Papa, but it is your right not to, and I will not be emotionally scarred by it.

 

I always hate it when people's views get blown out here in the Forum.  Yes, it is a video game Forum, but here is this thread, not created by me, that has a topic that interests me.  So I post my opinions at times, and facts at times as well.  I will always point out which I am presenting at the time.

 

Where this thread draws a parallel to the Forum, is that violent video games are being drawn into the same conversation.  So yes, there is some relevance here.  The debate over "guaranteed" Rights becomes important to those who care.  Letting ANY Government take your Rights away, a little at a time, should always be concerning.  While the removal or modification of some Rights may please some, the action may not be what is best for the whole.

 

This is where I stake my claim.  In a Democracy, it is not meant that one person's decision should be the be all/end all, even if they are the PotUS.  If Americans were given a vote on whether or not to ban certain, or all types of firearms and video games and it passed by the majority, then so be it.  This should be the method of decision, but we have already seen this Administration and the second to last Congress, push through a Health Care Bill that was, either in part or as a whole, most decidedly unpopular with the majority.  Precedence has been set for their actions.  

 

Don't fall asleep on Democracy.  It is our responsibility to see that those who WE choose to lead us, do as we wish (per the majority), and not what they feel is "best" for us.  We are not all children.  We do not need bubble wrap.  Don't let them take personal responsibility and accountability out of our lives.  Without these, we are drones, marching to the command of the "leader".

 

The United States Government, all its Branches and even its Executive WORK FOR US, not the other way around.

 

Moble 

Message 119 of 173 (91 Views)
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 11/06/2011
Offline
4421 posts
 

Re: NRA Blaming Video Games for the Violence.

Jan 14, 2013

mcbuttz78 wrote:

BRIT-KO wrote:

Well said, you put it far better than I did.


i have question for  brit ko.  why dont you respect  the president obama.. i dont  see anything he has done wrong during his reign. I have  been  alive for alot of us  president. only 2 that where  any good for governemnt  where clinton and obama. I think reagn wa sok but could  have alot better,  if it wasnt for  tip onell hhis lecgay would be  awful.

 

He hasnt gotten usa into any war. , he;s trying to help the everyday  people, he  for usa enegry not forgien. he promotes usa jobs here  and  help  build them instead send them to  else where..  I  dont understand  why folk dont like  obama, his policies are very good.  better than reagan polices, and the bushes, nixon. ford.  Alot of guys  man.. I think alot fall into media blitz stuff or other resaon sthat be.

 

 if ask me  jr bush was worst presdient  ever  in usa history .he did actually nothing in office for 8 yrs nothing but war he didnt build one program to  help anyone. alot program he signed  where from clintons era. the surplus he got was from clintons economy.    His governemt  almost crashed the usa. Im independant voter ( not meaning indepant party voter) i reserve my vote for best candinate , i go by the man  real worth and  if think any body out  could  do it better than Obama,  i would love for you   to name him/her.

 

  Obama has acted on guns so  many time in  presidental career , more than any other president. I dont  see him balming video games or saying lets raid  the general public cabniets. I heard hims say let do this in a  sensible way, let  bring both side in to tlk and see what best for the public.. He want to restrict high  volume magazine not guns altogether.

 

 

 

 

 


Sorry, I don't mean to nit pick, but did you just say this?

 

"i dont  see anything he has done wrong during his reign"

 

I think the general consensus of supporters for Obama, feel this way as well.  Here in lies the problem.  He is President; not the King, and certainly not the Messiah, as some others would lead you to believe.

 

Well, I think I just decided to save myself from a long and fruitless argument that would just create feelings of animosity.  I just deleted about ten paragraphs.

 

I am not going down this road again.  Obama is the President, I accept that.  I don't have to like him, and neither does BRIT.

 

Moble

Message 120 of 173 (89 Views)