Indecent Game Sales Now A Felony In New York

Gamespot reports on the final passing of New York senate bill A8696, legislation proposed just last week, that now makes it a serious felony to sell or rent a violent game to minors. The bill makes it illegal to sell a console without parental control options and establishes a group to second guess the ESRB's rating decisions. "'This bill is impermissibly vague,' EMA president Bo Andersen said in a statement. 'A8696 seeks to apply real-world standards of violence to the fictional and fanciful world of video games, an environment in which they have no meaning. As a result, retailers and clerks will not and cannot know with certainty which video games could send them to jail under A8696. It was depressing to hear members of the Assembly note the constitutional problems with the bill and then state that they were voting for it.'" The senate seems to have no fear of possible overturn of the bill, and claims it's only thinking of the children.

Comments

politicians.

[dahwang]

...and thinking of their parent's votes....

Re:politicians.

[faloi]

It's funny, in a sick way, that a lot of the politicians that are quick to place restrictions on video games and music seemingly don't care a bit about violence in the entertainment industry. Like everything else, you only need to look at the money to figure out why.

Re:politicians.

[anagama]

Or violence in real life. For that they sell yellow ribbon bumper stickers.

Re:politicians.

[flyingsquid]

Damn, with this law in place, how will I get my kicks selling violent video games to minors? You know what someone ought to do is create a video game where you earn points by distributing violent games to minors!

Re:politicians.

[flyingsquid]

Or, God forbid we actually try implementing some reasonable restrictions on handgun ownership in this country. Because, after all, if we did, then we'd turn into a totalitarian dictatorship where violent crime would be even worse, just like what happened Canada.

Re:politicians.

[Qzukk]

then we'd turn into a totalitarian dictatorship where violent crime would be even worse, just like what happened Canada.

Or Britain?

Re:politicians.

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Because the law abiding citizens this imposes restrictions on.........THEY are the ones we must stop. Aside from recent issues (VT) there have been only flies among 757s where legal gun owners are the ones who commit violent crimes. Many legal gun owners actually STOP crimes. Why should that matter... Feel good legislation is where it is at, man

Re:politicians.

[rabbit994]

New York does have what most people call "reasonable restrictions" on handgun ownership. Helping much? Britain banned most guns and is now most monitored society in Europe. I'll take gang bangers blasting each other (95% of murders) over being completely monitored by government.

Re:politicians.

[drinkypoo]

Say it with me: THE US IS NOT CANADA

It might well be possible to reduce or eliminate handgun sales in the US, but it won't be possible in the same way, nor on the same timescale, as any other country.

Remember, the mindset under which this country was founded led to the right to go about armed (aka "bear arms", yo) being written into the constitution. This nation was founded on individuality, and not on doing what one is told.

Re:politicians.

[Applekid]

The concise wisdom of Parent post in response to Grandparent is awe-inspiring.

Re:politicians.

[CrashPoint]

I'll take gang bangers blasting each other (95% of murders) over being completely monitored by government.

Please switch sides, or at least stop making up statistics. You're not helping.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Support the Tribute Sticker Industry": http://www.cafepress.com/redacted.65735800

Re:politicians.

[rabbit994]

Majority of murder are drug related. Ok, 95% is properly incorrect but it's slashdot where no one is going to change their mind due to comments.

Re:politicians.

[koreaman]

Individuality? Not doing what one is told? Maybe for some elite subset of the intellectual population, but I've remarked no difference between normal Europeans and normal Americans in this regard.

I believe a bigger problem is the fact that the average American almost worships his Constitution. Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate. Please remember that, living in the XVIIIth century, the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) in the XXIst.

Re:politicians.

[drinkypoo]

Individuality? Not doing what one is told? Maybe for some elite subset of the intellectual population, but I've remarked no difference between normal Europeans and normal Americans in this regard.

I didn't say that things were precisely the same today as when the nation was founded.

But certain legacies from that time are still alive and strong today.

I believe a bigger problem is the fact that the average American almost worships his Constitution. Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate.

I take your meaning, but I also want to reiterate the point that those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. The freedom of speech is necessary so that men can speak their minds and influence those of others. The freedom to bear arms is the only way to guarantee the freedom of speech. I could go on down the list, but the fact is that there are points at which force is the only valid response. When you get there, yes, the system has failed. But the old adage about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots remains true.

Re:politicians.

[0123456]

"Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate."

What nonsense; at least 90% of modern laws go against 'the original intentions of the Founding Fathers'.

Who, BTW, included in the Constitution an implicit assumption that Americans would own private warships (see 'letters of marque and reprisal'), and would be appalled at the idea of Americans being denied the right to own personal weapons.

Re:politicians.

[GreyPoopon]

Please remember that, living in the XVIIIth century, the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) in the XXIst.

In some respects, yes, but certainly not in the right to bear arms. It was a direct response to oppression by a government that had no respect for their individual freedoms and that tried to take away their ability to defend themselves. Case in point: because of the unrest among the colonies and the reaction to British attempts to control the situation, Lord Dunmore (governor of Virginia), ordered marines to empty the Magazine in Williamsburg of its power, with the expectation that this would leave the citizens and local militia unable to stage a rebellion against the British government. Up until this point, the vast majority of Virginians were loyal to the Crown and although unsatisfied with the situation, were determined to resolve the issues. Lord Dunmore's actions more or less sparked the Revolution (or was the straw that broke the camel's back). Founding fathers carefully considered this (and other actions) when they drafted the constitution, and it's just as relevant today. Almost all the US citizens here on Slashdot complain about erosion of freedom, and yet we hear people calling for more gun control. While I'm an advocate for peaceful resistance, giving up your ability to contain an errant government by force as a last resort is anything but wise. While probably not the best way of dealing with the federal government, it has been used successfully in the history of the US to deal with a corrupt local government.

Re:politicians.

[Chris Burke]

Well of course. " The senate seems to have no fear of possible overturn of the bill, and claims it's only thinking of the children."

Yeah, of course they don't fear it being overturned, which it will be on plain 1st Ammendment grounds just like every other law like it that has ever been passed. What does it being overturned cost them? Nothing, not a damn thing. They passed the happy-feel-good-think-of-the-children-but-don't-ac tually-think legislation, and it was the evil activist judges who knocked it down. Once again that pesky 1st Ammendment puts our children at risk.

If we actually looked badly upon legislators passing blatantly unconstitutional laws that they know will get overturned and waste taxpayer money, then they might possibly have some fear. But as it stands, the people they are catering to would be pleased as punch to throw out free speech if it gave them the illusion that the government is taking care of their children for them. This is nothing but upside for those politicians.

Re:politicians.

[Mr. Underbridge]

...and thinking of their parent's votes....

The problem is crap like this is an election year time bomb. It's like this. Let's say somebody sponsors a bill earmarking $2 billion for animal shelters. You vote against it because it's too much money. If I run against you in an election, I'll run a commercial saying that you like to kill puppies for fun.

Idiotic bills like this, best thing you can do as a representative, sadly, is abstain.

Re:politicians.

[Rycross]

I believe a bigger problem is the fact that the average American almost worships his Constitution. Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate. Please remember that, living in the XVIIIth century, the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) in the XXIst.

Man, if ever there was a post that needed to be modded up, this is it. I agree completely. The level of worship we afford to the founding fathers borders on ridiculous. Yes they were very smart men. Yes they had a lot of foresight. They were still just men, which means that they weren't perfect.

The Constitution is not the Bible. Its a living document, and it was designed as such, with explicit measures for making changes to it. Our forefathers designed it this way, because they knew that they were but men, so they couldn't predict or perfect everything in our country.

Its useful to reflect upon their wisdom, but through the lens of modern day. I don't buy that we are somehow less intelligent or wise than the founding fathers.

Re:politicians.

[illspirit]

Reasonable restrictions, eh? Okay, fine. Go to New York, apply for a pistol purchasing permit (which takes six months and the police can deny for any damn reason) get fingerprinted, background checked, and all that. Then when you have permission to purchase, go get your first pistol added to the permit before you can actually take possession of it (which can take six more months and, again, be denied for the police's amusement). Then, assuming you're actually successful, come back in a year and tell us if there's any way humanly possible they can make it any more difficult for you. The NY legislature would love to oblige, they've just run out of ideas. Oh, and be sure to go back the year after to re-register because the first permit was only good for three years.

Re:politicians.

[Everleet]

Idiotic bills like this, best thing you can do as a representative, sadly, is abstain.

No, the best thing you can do is to do your fucking job and at least slow the march of evil for a little while, rather than joining it (or laying down and taking it) for your own greed. Another term is useless if you're not helping anyway.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate.

Which side really wants rational debate?

The anti-gunners do not want rational debate. If they did, they wouldn't include 20 year old gang bangers in the statistics on "child gun deaths". If they did, they wouldn't pass gun laws that DOJ itself says had very little effect on crime (the "assault weapon" ban). What they want is to tell you guns are bad, tell you that the elite upper class should be able to have them and/or control who has them, and for you to believe them without questioning anything.

When they have to basically lie to make their point, that ought to tell you something.

Re:politicians.

[shoptroll]

Just what we need. Every citizen with their own personal Abrahms.

At least it'd keep the terrorists out of Dodge.

Re:politicians.

[Chabo]

The portions of the Constitution that deal with how the government is to be run are debatable, IMO. If you want to change the manner in which Senators are elected, that's fine by me (17th Amendment).

However, if you honestly want to change the Bill of Rights, I will fight you to the death. Those are the portions that secure individuals our freedom. I would not even think of letting you change the Third Amendment, let alone the Second. The only way in which the Bill of Rights could be improved would be to give freedom, not take it away.

Re:politicians.

[Kelbear]

Handgun restrictions vary heavily from state to state.

For example, here in New Jersey, it took 3 written reference letters and 6 weeks of processing for my law-abiding honors-student volunteer firefighter friend to get his gun permit.

Transporting the gun requires that the gun be unloaded with the ammo kept away from the gun. The gun must be in the trunk. The gun must be locked in a safe.

There's a great deal of restrictions out there. The problem is that it doesn't do anything to discourage those who have acquired their guns illegally, like my other friend who owns an unregistered shotgun with a shaved off serial number.

Re:politicians.

[Red Flayer]

It's funny, in a sick way, that a lot of the politicians that are quick to place restrictions on video games and music seemingly don't care a bit about violence in the entertainment industry. Like everything else, you only need to look at the money to figure out why.

It's not just money (although that's a big factor, pretty soon game developers will have to start paying their right-to-operate-as-they-wish tax -- errr, campaign contributions, I mean).

Games are an easy scape goat -- the majority of voters don't play a lot of video games, so they aren't personally affected and have no understanding of what playing violent games is like. Also, people trust that movie theaters will enforce ratings, whereas they don't trust video game stores to do so.

Re:politicians.

[Venner]

Thank you! Some of these comments just make me shake my head in wonderment and abject horror...

Re:politicians.

[jedidiah]

You mean things like waiting periods, licensing and banning certain types of weapons.

They way you talk one would get the impression that the crips and bloods were all running amok with tommy guns.

REAL pirates were able to plenty of Columbine style damage without the use of any of the more modern weapons that it's so trendy to shroud in fear and mystique.

Re:politicians.

[baldass_newbie]

At least it'd keep the terrorists out of Dodge.

Fucking A right, it would.
If folks were allowed concealed carry on airplanes, you reckon any of those planes would have hit anything?

Re:politicians.

[Rycross]

The Bill of Rights doesn't give freedoms, only codifies freedoms that we already have.

I don't want to change the Bill of Rights personally, but if I was so inclined to try, then it should be open to real debate, instead of just using the founding fathers as sort of a weird Godwin type thing. Of course, I would expect, encourage, and support your resistance.

Its our government and country, not the founding fathers'. We inherited it from them, so its up to us to shape it in the best way we possibly can. We should stop worrying about whether the founding fathers would approve of something. We should act in a certain way because it is the right thing to do.

Do you hold the Bill of Rights dear because the founding fathers wrote it, or because its a codification of freedoms that we as Americans hold dear?

Re:politicians.

[Mr. Bad Example]

> [...] the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is
> happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) [...]

Willan on-happen.

You're welcome.

Re:politicians.

[iminplaya]

I don't buy that we are somehow less intelligent or wise than the founding fathers.

Looking at the guy you put into the white house should eliminate all doubt.

Re:politicians.

[Rycross]

Are you somehow implying that being more concerned about what makes sense in modern days than some dead guys' approval means that I support eliminating freedoms that are the cornerstone of modern-day America? It sure seems that way to me, but I'd like to give you a benefit of a doubt.

If so, then I can only shake my head right back in wonderment. Politics shouldn't be run like a religion (only with a bunch of dead guys as the "gods"). Thats all that I, and the post I responded to, said.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't a fairly recent /. story talk about how the gaming industry was bringing in more money than Hollywood?

Re:politicians.

[Rycross]

A little study of history will show you that its not the first stupid thing we've done. Any country that has existed long enough will have a sordid history of evils, blatant stupidity, and corruption. It doesn't excuse the behavior.

Re:politicians.

[@madeus]

The problem for Britian these days is in following America's lead (in many ways), not in following Canada's.

Re:politicians.

[TommyMc]

Ok, if you or the gp actually think that Britain is a "totalitarian dictatorship", or even anything close, you need to log off slashdot, go outside, and see some of the fucking world, you idiot.

If, however, you are being sarcastic (or if the gp isn't being sarcastic), then carry on.

Re:politicians.

[denttford]

All true - in fact, we may be smarter. However, we might not be as experienced in understanding the core rights* needed to safeguard individual freedom - or allow for a revolution when all else fails. Look, they waged a campaign which succeeded by a hair, and then somehow put away enough of their biases to create a system better than they were. Not only is that worthy of respect, it is an act all too rare in human history. With that in mind, it is understandable to give their original intention a fairly big vote - not the sole deciding factor in interpreting or revising the Constitution, but their ideas should bear significant weight.

Appeals to the lens of "the modern" day neglects to recognize two things - 1)people have not changed all that much since the 18th century 2)modern Americans have not had to do what the Framers did, largely because of their success. Old ideas are not negated by "modernity" - nor cherished for their age - they stand or fall on their merits.


*Yes, I understand the problem with enumerated rights. Both sides are right, and I do not plan to rewrite or reargue the Federalist Papers on /..

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off. Assholes that want my more of my rights taken from me really piss me off. Want more gun control? There are places that already have that set up for you. Go there. Then we can both be happier with our situations.

Re:politicians.

[Rycross]

I agree with what you say. But I also noticed you focused on learning their ideas, understanding them, and applying those lessons that they already learned. In which case it becomes "learning from history" and not "do this because the fathers said so."

I think you agree with me, based on the contents of your post.

Re:politicians.

[amRadioHed]

I'll take gang bangers blasting each other (95% of murders) over being completely monitored by government. That is a false dichotomy.

Re:politicians.

[denttford]

We almost agree.

Do you hold the Bill of Rights dear because the founding fathers wrote it, or because its a codification of freedoms that we as Americans hold dear?

I think you would answer no and yes.
Yes, and yes seems to be the right answer to me.

I am loathe to change the Constitution because of modern sensibilities. The Constitution should be a slow changing document (save in urgent need, e.g. the 15th Amendment) lest we end up with another Prohibition. So, for me, when it is unclear - or even merely possible - that there is abridgment of liberty, I will default to the position of the Founders. When their error (inequal voting rights) or oversight (allowing states to violate the bill of rights) is clearly manifest, then yes, a change is needed.

Re:politicians.

[Rycross]

Personally, I'd try to understand the reasoning of the founders rather than take their position on faith. Doing otherwise is simply an appeal to authority.

Re:politicians.

[bishiraver]

The point was that violent crime is actually more pervasive in the UK than in the US, despite their ban on handguns. It's just that now most violent crime is perpetrated with knives and other physical weapons, like bats, metal pipes, chains, etc... Can't help that most of their beat cops don't carry handguns either. What happens when they go up against a skel WITH a gun? Yell at it and shake their baton?

Re:politicians.

[swv3752]

I am quite sure they would hit the ground. A bunch of amateurs firing guns would invariably lead to decompression in the cabin.

Re:politicians.

[nickname225]

Do you really think that you can "contain an errant government by force"? The right to gun ownership might have made sense as bar against government overreaching in the 18th Century - but today - there is no way you or me or any 10,000 of our friends together can stand up to the government in armed rebellion. The armament gap between governments and citizens has now increased to the point where citizens might as well be unarmed, naked and crippled if they go up against government troops. The best you could hope to do is wage an annoying guerrilla war and pick off a few soldiers before they kill you. Don't be encouraged by the success of the Iraqis. They are only doing as well as they are because of U.S. unwillingness to be seen using excessive force - not a likelihood in the case of internal rebellion.

Re:politicians.

[nickname225]

The bible is not the bible either...

Re:politicians.

[John Betonschaar]

If what you call 'personal freedom' is so aptly represented by the right to bear firearms, I'd say you have a really strange idea of 'freedom'. IMO the most important representatives of personal freedom are freedom of speech, freedom of thought, political preferences, sexual preferences, the right to decide what you do with your own property, the right to proper health care and education, even for the less wealthy, etc. etc. etc. Guns of all things *don't even occur to me* when thinking of personal freedom...

Still, the USA are famous for their bad public health care for large groups of people, their hypocritcal views on sexuality and different sexual preferences, strong commercial lobbies that dictate politics instead of common sense, government censorship, irrational soft drugs (why is smoking a joint not'personal freedom') and alcohol policy and so on. Yet the *one* thing that virtually no 'free people' from other parts of the world (the right to have guns) care about, seems to be the only fucking thing that matters when it comes down to 'freedom'.

You just enjoy your guns... err.. freedom...

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

All freedoms have one thing in common, they were secured at the barrel of a gun.

Re:politicians.

[denttford]

You should have read the wikipedia page closer. Appeal to authority is only an egregious fallacy when the expertise is misapplied (e.g. Chomsky, a brilliant linguist, said American is wrong) or presented as certainty (e.g. well, my doctor hasn't done a biopsy yet, but he's sure it's cancer so it must be).

Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument. An appeal to authority merely cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion because the fact that an authority says something does not make it so (even if it makes it more likely to be so).

Which is why in a case of ambiguity, I am willing to default to the expertise of people who did a pretty good job of building a stable and free state. I also am not sure why you'd think I am taking this as a matter of faith: historical intent and motive are key in implementing and interpreting historical documents. Moreover, giving people accomplished in a certain field the benefit of the doubt is hardly the same as faith.

Re:politicians.

[Mr. Underbridge]

No, the best thing you can do is to do your fucking job and at least slow the march of evil for a little while, rather than joining it (or laying down and taking it) for your own greed. Another term is useless if you're not helping anyway.

When you grow up you'll learn that you need to pick your battles. If this is the one end-all issue that you'll go to the wall for, then yes, you do. Otherwise, you're out on your ass before you can do anything actually useful. And for what? A bill that has a modest chance of becoming law and no chance of getting past the Supreme Court? Don't think so. This is election bait, and if you were in office, you'd have just fallen for it.

This is why the cute, ideological, naive first-term representatives are often one-termers.

Re:politicians.

[GreyPoopon]

Don't be encouraged by the success of the Iraqis. They are only doing as well as they are because of U.S. unwillingness to be seen using excessive force - not a likelihood in the case of internal rebellion.

I disagree. It's working in Iraq. It worked for YEARS in Afghanistan against the Soviets (and I'm sure they were using excessive force). It has been working in certain South American countries. I also think that the unwillingness to be perceived as using excessive force would be multiplied domestically, but that's just my opinion with no real facts to back it up. Assuming that you are correct, and that there's no way citizens could fight federal and state governments, the possession of firearms is still a deterrent to local government corruption (where it's likely more needed anyway).

Re:politicians.

[TommyMc]

It's just that now most violent crime is perpetrated with knives and other physical weapons, like bats, metal pipes, chains, etc

Yeah. And also: there a lot less of it. That's quite pertinent.

What happens when they go up against a skel WITH a gun? Yell at it and shake their baton?

No, the dispatcher and/or officer on the scene call an armed response unit, who are highly trained marksmen (due to their rare situation of having a gun on the streets of Britain). You see, because gun crime happens so infrequently in the UK (see above), the armed response units have an incredibly quick response time, quicker, i'd wager, than the normal police response time in the US.

Re:politicians.

[Ravengbc]

My first question after reading this, is what are they going to do with the parents who buy these games and give them to their 5, 6, and 7 year olds? Are the parents going to have felony charges against them? From personal experience selling games, I can say that parents will buy damn near anything just to shut their kids up. I've seen several parents, against my advice, buy GTA:SA for kids below the age of 9. Thats pretty messed up in my opinion.

As far as the talk about the Second Amendment, I'm a FULL supporter of the Second Amendment. Any politician who wants to take that right away from not just me, but all of the good, law abiding citizens who actually care about this country, can kiss my ass. The problem is not the guns, but the worthless pieces of shit who actually use the guns for murder instead of sporting, hunting and self defense (yes, i realize if it wasn't for these shit heads, we wouldn't need guns for self defense). The other thing, is that even if they did try to take away all the guns, the criminals are still going to commit crimes, including murder and assault.

But back to the whole felony thing. I don't know if its a good idea or not. I don't think that some of the games out there should be in the hands of kids, but parents will always do what they want to get what they want- their kids to shut up.

Re:politicians.

[Rycross]

Actually, no, the Wikipedia entry says that it is a fallacy:

It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. and

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. Wikipedia's interpretation jives with everything I learned from my logic courses in college. Of course, it doesn't mean that the argument is wrong either.

I was wrong to state that you were taking things on faith. However, when you say that "historical intent and motive are key in implementing and interpreting historical documents," aren't you saying that you analyze their intent? Thats pretty close to what I was saying.

I still think that its important we analyze what they say and why they say it. I look at what they say because of their past success, but I don't think its true because they say it. We should follow their advice because its good advice, not because Thomas Jefferson said it.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. See the Mythbusters episode.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

looking at the guy in the white house also demonstrates the wisdom of worshiping the constitution. All this "living document" bullshit is exactly whats allowed the current administration to run roughshod over civil liberties and declare unconstitutional wars. If we actually followed the constitution, we wouldn't have to constantly bitch about absurd laws like the one mentioned in TFA.

Re:politicians.

[ChaosWeevil]

Yup.

While we're at it, why is the violent crime rate so low in Switzerland, a country with very low amounts of gun legislation?

Re:politicians.

[d34thm0nk3y]

I believe a bigger problem is the fact that the average American almost worships his Constitution. Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate. Please remember that, living in the XVIIIth century, the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) in the XXIst.

I find it somewhat amusing that you would post that in a thread debating a blatantly un-constitutional law that was just passed in NY. I wish these representatives "worshiped" the constitution, or at the very least, followed their oath to obey it.

Re:politicians.

[vimh42]

Do you honestly believe that? Then bend over now and wait. You have condemned yourself. In the world gone wrong, you will get what you have just asked for. If you do not desire freedom, you will not receive it.

Re:politicians.

[photomonkey]

Unwillingness to use excessive force? Sure, no nukes yet in Iraq if that's what you mean.

Guerrilla war can be highly effective. Castro took power after a leaky, overcrowded boat of about 100 people limed to Cuba from Mexico. He fought a MUCH stronger force and won.

Iraq's relative success over the US also demonstrates what can be done with 50-year-old technology against the modern US infantry.

Re:politicians.

[Dachannien]

IMO the most important representatives of personal freedom are freedom of speech, freedom of thought, political preferences, sexual preferences, the right to decide what you do with your own property, the right to proper health care and education, even for the less wealthy, etc. etc. etc. Guns of all things *don't even occur to me* when thinking of personal freedom...

How about the freedom to decide for yourself which Constitutionally-protected freedoms mean more to you than others?

Re:politicians.

[denttford]

Reread my response - it is why I said "it is only an egregious fallacy if..." an appeal to authority is still a fallacy. However, I never asserted the "truth" of the Framers statements. My (one) normative statement is this: the Framers did a pretty good job and had experience to draw on; unless there is a clear problem, it is reasonable to follow their lead. So I hold that it is reasonable to take a statement made by Thomas Jefferson on liberty, governance, and individual rights seriously, because he is Thomas Jefferson: because his experience and intent (as demonstrated by his writing and actions) to my mind makes him a well intention expert in liberty, governance, and individual rights. If you don't agree that his qualifications make him an expert statesman, fine. If you don't think that he was well intentioned; that while his words promoted liberty, his actions were ultimately self serving and disingenuous, that's fine too. I don't believe that to be so; I'm pretty sure you don't believe that either.

Of course following their lead requires understanding. I never thought were were debating the value of understanding the writings of late 18th century American statesmen - you cannot on the one hand embrace their worth, while on the other dismissing the value of reading their words.

Re:politicians.

[Petaris]

Perhaps, but the military is made up of citizens as well, including friends and relatives. If something like that came about here how do you know that the government would still have the entire military following its orders? Just a thought.

Re:politicians.

[iminplaya]

Well, I still have a pretty high regard for the bill of rights. If anything they need to be strengthened. And any document recognizing the rights of the individual should be cherished. The problem now is the loose interpretation by the judges that rule on such matters, giving the government far too much leeway.

Re:politicians.

[dafragsta]

Yes, because in no way are Iraqi insurgents confounding our troops right now in this century.

Be realistic. I'm no proponent of militias as they exist in Bumfuck, Montana, but in some ways, I'm a bit thankful that they do exist. Our love of guns is a good and bad thing, but it is STILL a deterrent for out-of-hand governments like the one we have in place today from just declaring marshal law and throwing people they don't like into camps. You don't need tinfoil to know that in the past month, Bush has taken liberties with presidential orders which did not make the front page of CNN.com

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20 070509-12.html

Read that and tell me you aren't glad we have crazies all about who are looking for a machine to rage against. All they need is a little moral justification and it's on like Donkey Kong. Also, in a state of civil unrest, unless you are Chuck Norris, you are going to want a great equalizer on your side.

Re:politicians.

[jimicus]

Technically, you are quite correct.

However, if 10,000 of your friends actually get together and march on the White House armed to the teeth (rather than the more likely scenario of 9,998 of them running off as soon as the army appears), then the government of the day will have a political problem the likes of which they have not seen in decades.

Re:politicians.

[Maradine]

If what you call 'personal freedom' is so aptly represented by the right to bear firearms, I'd say you have a really strange idea of 'freedom'. IMO the most important representatives of personal freedom are freedom of speech, freedom of thought, political preferences, sexual preferences, the right to decide what you do with your own property, the right to proper health care and education, even for the less wealthy, etc. etc. etc.

And how, precisely, do you intend to defend them?

Re:politicians.

[denttford]

who are highly trained marksmen (due to their rare situation of having a gun on the streets of Britain)

I guess thats cause all the guns and untrained marksmen in England aren't on the streets, but Underground, I'd wager.

Re:politicians.

[hobbes64]

Of course you can stand up to superior forces by using guerilla warfare. See Vietnam or current Iraq situation for examples.
Or Red Dawn!

Re:politicians.

[mark3748]

The AC reply to this is perfect, it had been proven wrong on mythbusters. Explosive decompression in an aircraft is impossible with a handgun. And besides, that's why they make frangible ammo.

Re:politicians.

[Omestes]

Ah... the sad debate between idealism and realpolitik. Sadly I must subscribe to your view, but I prefer the GPs idea. I'm not a fan of the strictly pragmatic, and wish there was a way to escape it. Looking at the various (republican and democrat) candidates we can see this, the handful of idealists have no chance, while the front runners are pretty ethically mercenary, going strictly for the popular when needed, and going for the money and industry the rest of the time, as per their personal interests. But then again idealism isn't all its cracked up to be either, our current fearless leader is a staunch idealist, bucking popularity for his own dubious standards, and more atrocities have been waged due to idealistic ideas, than not.

Idealism is often completely divorced from reality. While realpolitik is often draconian, and inhumane. We need a nice middle ground, the ability to work with the Real, to make the idea real, while never being divorced from the most important factors, integrity, and humanity. Not going to happen in my life time, nor ever.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or restrict cars, knives, farm machinery...more people die in cars each year than by gun shots. It's really sad we allow people to use something as a tool to get from point A to point B that is so deadly. I can't believe people are allowed to slowly kill themselves with fast food, cigarettes, and beer either! What are we thinking? We need to restrict or ban everything that is bad for us or cause us harm, cause we all know we have no individual control over our actions or how we use things. Without a gun I'm much safer, but without a hammer in my hand to beat your skull in with, I'm an even safer person! ;-) (Sarcasm in case you didn't know.)

Re:politicians.

[Eternauta3k]

And how, precisely, do you intend to defend them?

Like this?
Or this?

Re:politicians.

[Ornedan]

Most probably would. Remember that a part of military training is intended to turn normal people into sociopaths that can actually kill other humans in cold blood. Part of that is the dehumanisation of whomever is supposed to be killed today. Somewhat relatedly, your government has gotten itself the right to use troops in states other than where they are from (something called National Guard, IIRC).

Re:politicians.

[licious]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/128834/family_guy_ri ght_to_bear_arms/ bear arms ftw!

Re:politicians.

[PitaBred]

Gandhi "won" because Britain couldn't be bothered to go all the way over to India to fuck with him. If it was their backyard, he would have been crushed under their heels and ignored.

Re:politicians.

[PhxBlue]

The right to gun ownership might have made sense as bar against government overreaching in the 18th Century - but today - there is no way you or me or any 10,000 of our friends together can stand up to the government in armed rebellion.

Really? Because it seems about 10,000 or so people in Iraq are doing exactly that.

Re:politicians.

[PopeJM]

and ironically, I personally believe that the founding father's intentions were for future citizens of the US to change the constitution to the changing needs of our nation. I think they wanted the constitution to reflect the idea that the US would be different in that it would be founded to meet the needs of the people not simply of the will of the rulers.

Re:politicians.

[koreaman]

Indeed, those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. That means that we should study history and look critically at the actions of people of that time period and at the consequences of those actions.

Notice I said that we should analyze these actions critically. We should NOT simply sort them into Good Guys and Bad Guys and take everything the Good Guys say as gospel.

You claim that the freedom to bear arms is the only way to guarantee the freedom of speech, which I agree is very important. I don't see how you've come to that conclusion. As another poster points out, the freedom to bear arms does nothing to stop political tyranny, as the government is almost infinitely better armed than any group of citizens could ever hope to be. It logically follows that, since our freedom to bear arms is not guaranteeing our freedom of speech, that we do not have freedom of speech. Do you support this logical conclusion of your argument? Do you believe that we currently live without freedom of speech (in the United States)?

Re:politicians.

[Archangel_Azazel]

--Almost all the US citizens here on Slashdot complain about erosion of freedom, and yet we hear people calling for more gun control. While I'm an advocate for peaceful resistance, giving up your ability to contain an errant government by force as a last resort is anything but wise. While probably not the best way of dealing with the federal government, it has been used successfully in the history of the US to deal with a corrupt local government.--

I almost agree with you here. However, I still fail to see how 1 9mm and a rifle trump 5 assult shotguns, 10 .45's (or 9mm...standard police issue.), tear gas / flashbangs and body armor.(I probably have the #'s wrong, but I was trying to think of a SWAT entry squad, which is only on the local level... now let's talk about tanks and APCs.) I think we should have the right to defend ourselves, but I have my doubts as to the majority of this country having the responsiblity and maturity to not shoot their neighbor over something stupid.

We don't raise adults very much anymore. If you're wondering why I say this, it's because if you look at common reactions to situations, most of us (The US) act like children wanting their mommy and daddy to make the bad men go away. We keep passing more and more laws that are turning the land of the free into the land of the nanny. Advertising and general culture don't help. Ever notice that most advertising operates on the level of either embarassment or sex? Two of our most primitive and illogical drives. Are they effective? Yes. Are they teaching those who are bombarded daily with these messages that this is the proper way to behave? YES. We're social animals, it's in our very nature to be that way. When you immerse a social animal into a culture, they adapt to take on traits of that culture. Translation : If little Suzy and Bobby sit and watch TV most of the time, they're going to be bombarded with messages and situations that re-enforce things like sexism, violence, and immature behaviour. It doesn't help that most parents nowadays count on TV and Movies to raise their kids for them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not just one problem, with one cause... it's a group of problems with causes that feed into each other. Passing more idiotic laws that say "this is the way a small section of people want it, and that's the way it's going to be or it's for you!" don't help because people aren't inclined to follow them anyway. As for things like gun control... I've never heard of a criminal going to his local gun connection and saying "Ooop...sorry man, THAT gun is illegal...I can't have that!"

My rambling two cents,

A.A

Re:politicians.

[koreaman]

This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. You equate "Constitutionally-protected" with "good".

Re:politicians.

[koreaman]

This is easily the most insightful post in this entire little debate.

We need a +6 HG2G mod.

Re:politicians.

[Todamont]

You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands...

Re:politicians.

[Archangel_Azazel]

Well, it's blatently obivious that concealed carry laws lower crime rates! More guns = less deaths right? Or...not...*shakes his head* Why do people think this is a problem you can just throw more violence at and solve it?

Oh, and another thing... ever see what happens to a plane when you put a hole in the skin...or say...20 of them? You think all the people who carry concealed are crack shots? I sure as shit wouldn't trust my life to Cleetus from KY who just got his CC 4 days ago and wants to be a fuckin hero. Thanks though.

Then again, it's my opinion...and I could be wrong.
A.A

Re:politicians.

[Archangel_Azazel]

--Looking at the guy you put into the white house should eliminate all doubt.--

Did you vote? If you did, then you did all you could however *you* still helped put him in office by adhering to the guideline that you should vote. Just because it didn't go your way doesn't mean you're suddenly innocent of anything he does. Last I checked, you were an AMERICAN, just like the rest of the Americans that keep this country running.

Oh, and if you want change...stop thinking that electing another president is going to accomplish it. Congress is where you want your energy going. Even if the Prez wanted to veto every damn bill that comes out of it, they can *still* override him. The President is a figurehead and a distraction.

A.A

Re:politicians.

[Fred_A]

Or violence in real life. For that they sell yellow ribbon bumper stickers.

Maybe a new market is being born ?

"support our fraggers"

Re:politicians.

[potat0man]

Do you really think that you can "contain an errant government by force"?

Yes. What are they going to do, nuke an american town? Send in tanks? There are militias in Montana, Texas and New Mexico that could give a U.S. batallion a run for their money. Besides, a guerrila war is far more than an 'annoyance', it's warfare and a very effective method at that as the Vietnamese will attest. Not to mention American soldiers are Americans too, many of them are bound to rebel as well, taking a few tanks and bombs with them.

Imagine if one in three Hutus had had shotguns in their homes 15 years ago in Rwanda. You really think mass genocide would have been succesful? Even attempted? A civil war maybe, but genocide? No way.

Go ahead, try to tell me it could never happen here. I'm sure 20 years ago I could find 1,000 Rwandans who would have sworn to you the same thing about their own country.

I'm one of those people who think the ability to defend oneself is more important than a lot of other things, including a few tens of thousands of annual accidental deaths. To me it's a small price for a society to pay in order to ensure it won't be pushed around.

Re:politicians.

[drinkypoo]

As another poster points out, the freedom to bear arms does nothing to stop political tyranny

You claim that the freedom to bear arms does nothing to stop political tyranny. I don't see how you've come to that conclusion.

the government is almost infinitely better armed than any group of citizens could ever hope to be.

This doesn't matter. The guns are not your only voice, they're simply necessary to ensure that you actually have one. Otherwise you are permitted to express only permissible thoughts.

It logically follows that, since our freedom to bear arms is not guaranteeing our freedom of speech, that we do not have freedom of speech.

Only if one accepts your first assertion, which I do not.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

"there is no way you or me or any 10,000 of our friends together can stand up to the government in armed rebellion"

Funny, I think some soldiers in Iraq might disagree. A government as large as the US's could easily quash any sort of rebellion, yes, but only if they were willing to suffer huge civilian losses as well. And that's assuming that all those civilian losses did not inspire another rebellion.

Re:politicians.

[Archangel_Azazel]

I think Eminem said it best:

"So who's bringin the guns in this country? (Hmm?)
I couldn't sneak a plastic pellet gun through customs over in London
And last week, I seen a Schwarzaneggar movie
where he's shootin all sorts of these motherfuckers with a uzi
I sees three little kids, up in the front row,
screamin "Go," with their 17-year-old Uncle
I'm like, "Guidance - ain't they got the same moms and dads
who got mad when I asked if they liked violence?"

Sometimes I look around and wonder how some people tie their shoes in the morning with the intelligence that they show. *shrugs*

My two cents,

A.A

Re:politicians.

[koreaman]

Explain to me then how guns protect your voice.

Re:politicians.

[drinkypoo]

Explain to me then how guns protect your voice.

Just as the fact that a zillion dipshits signing up to join the military in order to get the GI bill and pay for their college enabled our current, corrupt, unelected administration to wage war on a genocidal dictator who we created by training and supporting them, the zillion guns in the hands of the people in the US makes it possible for us to speak.

It keeps the government nervous, which is what keeps them from doing anything they want.

The government cannot sustain a prolonged physical attack against a people in revolt, because it becomes too costly in every way. No one but the insane would even try in the first place. They can do all kinds of sneaky things, though, and they do.

But perhaps you are not acquainted with my ideas on basic human rights - I don't believe in them. It's not that I don't think we should have them. It's that there is no guarantee of anything in this world. We can only do our best.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands...

"Your proposal is acceptable!" <crunch>

Re:politicians.

[skarphace]

Just as the fact that a zillion dipshits signing up to join the military in order to get the GI bill and pay for their college enabled our current, corrupt, unelected administration to wage war on a genocidal dictator who we created by training and supporting them, the zillion guns in the hands of the people in the US makes it possible for us to speak.

What? So you're saying the military is the citizens speaking out? Please tell me that you don't think the war in iraq is the protest of the american people.

It keeps the government nervous, which is what keeps them from doing anything they want.

This has no basis in reality. Since when has the modern US government ever cared about people? The only thing they currently care about is whether or not they'll be voted in at the next election.

I don't disagree with the 2nd ammendment, I disagree with these poor arguments for it. You did make one good point about government not sustaining a prolonged physical attack. As long as the revolt is lead by the majority, that is...

Re:politicians.

[BgJonson79]

Why treat the symptom and leave the problem hanging around? After all, NH, ME and VT all have lots of handguns and a low crime rate. And why is that? Socio-economic equality. When everyone is pretty much the same, and have something to live for and look forward to, bad stuff doesn't happen.

And, of course, restricting handguns in places tends to just make it easier for the predators to pick their prey.

Re:politicians.

[BgJonson79]

Actually, what's really funny is mayors in MA and NY trying to sue NH gun shops for selling "illegal" guns to those states when the guns are perfectly legal here, and we don't have problems like they do.

Maybe they just suck. I mean, MA has 10x the murders of NH.

But only 5x the population.

And even with the lack of gun laws in NH, a huge percentage of murders are done with knives.

Re:politicians.

[gunny01]

It's worse in Australia: with no rights for citizens to own arms, the government can run wild. Look at what happens. There is one shooting (Port Arthur): bang, no more semi-autos of any kind for civilians. No grandfathering. My 60-yr old Grandpa got his ten round, .22LR semi-auto rifle confiscated. Another shooting (Monash Uni): Bang, no more pistols, except for those who compete in over 10 shooting competitions a year. And yes, we still have gun crime in Australia. Despite the fact that it's far easier to own a car than a 850fps single shot air rifle. Recently, cops all over the country have been begging to get Glocks and other semi-autos because they are being out-gunned by criminals. To those ./ers who say no one needs a gun, who don't get it when gun owners bitch and moan about gun laws, let me pose you a hypothetic sitiuation: Car ownership is heavily restricted. No one living in the city needs a car, it's just a dangerous, polluting, selfish form of transport. If you have a legitimate reason for owning a car, you may own 1 small car, which will be ridiculously overpriced with a 30L fuel tank. You can only drive your cars on certain roads, at certain times, and don't let the cops catch you with car off the official roads. They might still bust you if you're doing perfectly legal things. Any person who's willing to crusade for car control (Cars cause far more deaths, injuries than guns), can crusade for gun control.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're free to decide, and I'm free to demonstrate that you're wrong.

Guns are something that you rarely use when compared to free speech, religion, etc.. And their importance in most peoples lives, even gun lovers is probably secondary to those other things.

Given the choice, which would you give up? Freedom of speech or the right to bear arms?

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are only doing as well as they are because of U.S. unwillingness to be seen using excessive force

Right, cause our soldiers are totally down for killing our own citizens. Why would they mind killing their own brothers and sisters, they're soldiers afterall, and they volunteered. /sarcasm

Re:politicians.

[DigiShaman]

Keep in mind that our Military is voluntary. It doesn't really matter though, because they're also civilians whom have family and friends that are not in the service.

No, I would expect a civil war. Both sides would contain civilians and military personnel. God forbid the H-Bombs get divided up among the factions.

Atomic civil war. Now that's a thought worth pondering...

Re:politicians.

[Marful]

Because handgun crime is obviously being committed by responsible law abiding citizens and not criminals whom any such legislation fails to effect.


Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers

Report conducted by the Department of Justice states that criminals are not affected by gun control. Criminals do not use guns legally purchased and legally owned. Moreover given the choice of confronting a potentially armed victim vs. an unarmed one, the criminals unanimously elected to encounter an unarmed victim (duh).

But you don't hear the Brady Bunch mention the DoJ report at all, do you?


"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Re:politicians.

[Marful]

How many firearms owners are there in America?

How many LEO and Military personel are there in America?

Now tell me about how ineffective the Viet Cong were?

Re:politicians.

[DavidTC]

You do realize we don't actually need the third amendment, right? That the fourth actually covers that increasingly unlikely situation.

But we've had so many idiotic interpetations of the original bill of rights, by both parties, that right now they are almost entirely gibberish.

We need to sit down and actually enumerate the rights we want to have, including filling all the loopholes and questions that have been raised over the years. A few suggestions/questions, for both directions of infringement:

What, exactly, is level of armament do we want people to possess? Probably not WMDs, what about tanks? Mortars? Should governments be able restrict gun possession on certain properties, like schools, or courthouses? What about near certain properties?

What requirements for voting are acceptable? Is non-citizen voting really a large enough problem that we need to make people produce ID? What, legally, should be required to remove someone from the voting roll? To stop fraud we should stamp hands? Should we disallow electronic-only voting? (Duh.) And once and for all, should felons who have served their time be allowed to vote?

How about we change it to 'freedom of expression' instead of speech and press? Making it clearer it applies to the message, not the medium. Other documents defining rights already call it this.

While we're at it, how about putting something in there about the difference between the right to believe religious beliefs, or anything you want, and the non-right to stop the government from stating, teaching, and acting on actual facts when they are in conflict with said beliefs? As a comprimise, we can place some facts eternally beyond the reach of the government while we're at it.

And let's declare, once and for all, that these rights are restrictions on the government in all circumstances, and anyone acting as an agent of the government, and put to rest the bullshit about 'Cuba's not part of the US so if we have someone there they have no rights'. That is not only not what the founders intended, but what the Constitution actually flat-out states, and the Supreme Court has deliberately misread that for decades. All defined rights apply to people, period, or restrict the government, period. (1) They don't say 'people within the US' or 'the government when operating within the US'. (Yes, oddly enough, the rights the constitution grants 'people' technically apply to every person in the world, so it is a unconstitutional for a Chinese person to be held without trial in China by the China government, although, obviously, they don't care.)

Once we fix the existing rights we have, how about worrying about the ones we don't? Let's start with the one human right we don't have that other people do, the one international bill of rights we refused to sign. A right ensuring food and shelter and education for children. Good? Bad?

And then, we can debate new ones. Is anyone else as disgusted at the idea of victimless crime as me? Disgusted we spend so much money tracking down people who aren't hurting anyone, or who are hurting only people who consent?

Slightly related, what about assisted suicide? Do people have the right to end their life?

And, of course, we could have a discussion about the rights we apparently have, but I don't quite understand how, like abortion. (Not saying I oppose abortion rights, just saying I don't see how a right to privacy can protect that, but not, say, taking cocaine recreationally.)

And while we're at it, how about the goddamn ERA? Where'd that get to?

The odds of Congress 'rebooting' the bill of rights to fix all the problems is somewhat slim, though.

1) A few say 'citizens', but those are all about voting.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Atomic civil war. Now that's a thought worth pondering...

Outlandish as it seems, these guys seem deadly serious about it. One of the scariest sites I have ever seen in 12 years of browsing.

Re:politicians.

[Kyojin]

Yes, because decompression at the height of the twin towers would have been fatal.

Seriously, even if the plane was flying at maximum altitude, a few bullet holes aren't that dangerous. Even if you took out an entire window such that pressure loss could result in unconsciousness, you have oxygen masks, and the pilot can take the plane down to 8000 feet, the level most planes are pressurised to. Although, when I say "aren't that dangerous" I mean compared to terrorists taking control of the plane and executing hostages or crashing the plane.

Ricocheting bullets is another problem, which air marshals have overcome by using fragmenting bullets, which also will not pass through a target, piercing the fuselage or window behind them.

That said, I do not support free for all concealed permits. Possibly air marshals, with appropriate training. When was the last time a passenger was able to bring a gun onto a plane? Even with ceramic guns, the bullets would be detected in a metal detector.

Re:politicians.

[general_re]

No, the dispatcher and/or officer on the scene call an armed response unit, who are highly trained marksmen (due to their rare situation of having a gun on the streets of Britain). You see, because gun crime happens so infrequently in the UK (see above), the armed response units have an incredibly quick response time, quicker, i'd wager, than the normal police response time in the US. Wait, so here's the scenario - a call comes in to report a burglary in progress or whatever, so normally the dispatcher sends a beat officer, who is unarmed. But when he arrives on the scene, the officer notes that the suspect is likely armed. Whereupon he calls the dispatcher again, who now sends out the ARU. And your theory is that this all happens faster than having the initial responding officer be armed in the first place? Do the Met Police have teleporters or some such that they're not letting everyone know about? Because I have to say that I find this hilariously unlikely. :-/

Re:politicians.

[Chabo]

I agree with your first statement in spirit, but not in wording. Certain rights are inalienable, and belong to men regardless of what a government says. However, freedoms are taken away all the time, since people are not willing to do the work necessary to hold on to them. You don't have to look hard to find examples.

To answer your question, it's because they are the cornerstone rights that make up the foundation for a free society. The founding fathers wrote the rest of the Constitution as well, but I could care less about most of the document. As I said, those parts detail the how, not the why. Hell, if you want to take out some of the "enumerated powers" of Congress, I'd be more than happy to let you. Commerce Clause, anyone? ;)

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Said Mao Tse Tung.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq part 2 would be exactly what would happen, except worse, as some of the military would defect, while virtually none have in Iraq.

Re:politicians.

[Dachannien]

Given the choice, which would you give up? Freedom of speech or the right to bear arms?

Well, neither, but if I was forced to choose one or the other, I'd give up freedom of speech just long enough to shoot the person who was demanding that I give up my rights.

Re:politicians.

[LiENUS]

You forget, government soldiers are citizens as well. Just because they are soldiers today for what MIGHT be wrong doesn't mean they won't answer to the call against what IS wrong. Please however understand the distinction as just because your personal preference as to what is wrong is one thing does not mean to the masses the same thing is wrong. The beauty of the masses is they decide what is right and wrong, not what one person believes is right and wrong. They may take some time to come to a cohesive decision but in the end they do stand for what they as a whole believe to be right.

Re:politicians.

[rtechie]

It might well be possible to reduce or eliminate handgun sales in the US, but it won't be possible in the same way, nor on the same timescale, as any other country. Yes, but this is true mainly for logistical reasons, not legal ones. The United States is the worlds' largest arms manufacturer and has been for quite some time. There are a LOT of handguns in the United States, registered and otherwise. Any sort of program that involved turning in firearms and licensing would likely take decades and as a practical measure would meet enormous resistance from rural Americans, who are disproportionately powerful in the USA.

So no, it's not happening anytime soon.

Re:politicians.

[lessthan]

Exactly where is it written that we already have these so-called freedoms? Is it in the Constitution's preamble? I might have missed them there. The reason we "worship" the Constitution is that it is what binds the government. Far from just dictating how our government is run, it limits that government's influence on our lives. Something that is more important than we realize.

Re:politicians.

[The_Quinn]

Ummm, didn't we revolt against Britain? With ... guns?

Re:politicians.

[sasdrtx]

There are lots of restrictions on handgun ownership now. People like you who whine for the government to solve all the problems in the world generally seem to think "reasonable restrictions" means a complete ban of handguns. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that passing more laws does not deter someone who's already willing to break laws? Why is it so difficult to understand that passing laws does not suddenly make things the way you want? It merely creates more stupid crimes for the police to investigate and more privacy invasion by the government. And the results are plain: where there are more gun restrictions (in this country), the more gun violence there is.

Re:politicians.

[LKM]

This nation was founded on individuality, and not on doing what one is told.

That may be possible, but in my experience, jingoism and mindless patriotism are a lot more pervasive in the US than in most other western, first-world countries, while individual opinion and reason is often almost frowned upon - especially since 9/11.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Let's get rid of the rest of the bill of rights, too. The constitution is just a piece of paper, after all.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

" - not a likelihood in the case of internal rebellion."

Because it would look so much nicer to kill rebelling Americans than Iraqi insurgents ..

Re:politicians.

[skam240]

Israel's latest experience in Lebanon serves to discredit your argument a bit. Israel has one of the most modern militarys in the world and took a beating on their latest foray into Lebanon. Plus, I think most people would agree that Israel has no worries about being seen using excessive force.

I don't think any country has a military large enough to contain truly wide spread revolt in their own country. There's just too much territory to cover.

Re:politicians.

[Grishnakh]

Wow, those are a bunch of total lunatics on that site. However, I know there's a lot of Americans that agree with them, so I actually support their movement (except without the violence part). People who think this way should be allowed to move to places like Alabama and Mississippi, and secede from the rest of the USA. Then they can have the authoritarian theocracy they desire so much. Meanwhile, the rest of us will deal with more important things than harassing homosexuals. After a decade or so, we'll see how their economy fares compared to the rest of the states.

Stuff like this is exactly why I'm a proponent of breaking up the USA. There's too much diversity of opinion, too many different cultures, and they just aren't getting along. Everyone in the South complains about Californians, and everyone else complains about the South, etc. Instead of worrying about people in other states forcing a government and laws upon you that you don't want, we should split up the country so people can have more self-determination. We could be somewhat like the Europeans in keeping a common currency and national defense, but that's it; everything else would be dealt with internally. So if people in the South want to ban homosexuality and abortion, and the people in New Jersey and Illinois want to ban all firearms, let them. Meanwhile, I'll stay in the Western states (not CA) where things are a bit more libertarian in principle.

Re:politicians.

[bateleur]

I live in London and that's certainly not been my experience of things.

On the other hand, the example is a bit contrived. Armed burglary accounts for a tiny fraction of all burglaries (most of which are over long before the police get there anyway and, based on anecdotal evidence, usually happen when the residents of the property are out).

Most of the gun crime here involves gangs and drugs. And in fact the police aren't too happy over their capacity to deal with all this and regularly complain that they want more armed officers. (See this BBC report from 2004 for more details.)

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait?

It's not flamebait, it's the truth.

E.G., http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ki ds has "As the rate of gun violence dramatically increased during the 1980s and early 1990s, American children paid the price. From 1984 to 1994 the firearm death rate for 15-19 year olds increased 222% while the non-firearm homicide death rate decreased almost 13%. While deaths from gunfire have been decreasing since 1994, firearms are still expected to overtake motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among American children."

You know why they pick 15-19? That's where a good number of the drug and gang related murders are. You know why they pick 1984 to 1994? During that time period there was a large increase in drug and gang related murders.

They are picking the age range, and the time range, carefully, so that they can cite a horrifying "222% increase", when that increase is actually due to the rise of drug and gang violence. However, they frame it as basically a "Think of the Children!" question. The general public does not think to actually look and find out that the "children" they are talking about are late-teens and involved in gangs and drug dealing. Cherry picking your statistics and stating things in a manner that avoids talking about what is really going on is, in fact, basically lying.

Nothing in the above post is false, or intended to incite a flamewar. It's simply the truth.

Re:politicians.

[vernon.mds]

yeah that's right. I guess the games people aren't active lobbyist

Re:politicians.

[GreyPoopon]

I almost agree with you here. However, I still fail to see how 1 9mm and a rifle trump 5 assult shotguns, 10 .45's (or 9mm...standard police issue.), tear gas / flashbangs and body armor.(I probably have the #'s wrong, but I was trying to think of a SWAT entry squad, which is only on the local level... now let's talk about tanks and APCs.) I think we should have the right to defend ourselves, but I have my doubts as to the majority of this country having the responsiblity and maturity to not shoot their neighbor over something stupid.

In this case, you pitted a single person against a whole SWAT team. If only one person is fighting against the local law, I think they might want to reconsider their position. ;) Try putting that same SWAT team against about thirty people carrying shotguns and pitchforks who have planned for the invasion ahead of time, and I think the odds will be better. Also, I think the ban on the right to purchase certain assault weaponry expired recently (although VT might make sure that it get put in place again). And even with the ban, guns are sold that can easily be modified to be semi or fully automatic with only minor changes. Now against tanks and APCs is another matter, and I think you would need guerrilla warfare to fight those.

BTW, just so you don't think I'm a complete gun nut -- I own two shotguns. One of them is used for hunting (occasionally) and the other is for sporting clays, but it's an antique collectors' item, so I rarely fire it. I do not believe that guns are the way to handle problems, even with the government, and if things get to the point where they are required, we've really messed up. However, I also don't believe that gun control (at least at this point) would fix anything. In almost all situations, violence with guns involves weapons that were obtained illegally. In fact, the VA Tech case is the first high profile case I've heard of in a LONG time where the weapons were obtained legally, and it's clear that a loophole in information sharing was responsible for that. My point is that if somebody wants to shoot somebody else, they'll obtain a gun regardless of what laws we have.

Re:politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have armed burglars in Britain. If they're carrying a gun, that's one less video recorder they can carry.

Both the US and UK, pro and anti gun lobbies, all consistently misrepresent the sort of crime which is prevalent in the other country. Carrying any kind of weapon is vanishingly rare in most parts of British society, which means that burglars can burgle safely with no weapon because householders will have nothing either. Typically, they run away if you disturb them - they don't want to get caught.

However, there is a growing drug gang underculture where scores are settled with machetes or guns - this is almost entirely fighting between gangsters. This is where most of the gun deaths are.

From memory, there were about 750 murders last year, about 50 by gun. That's about 15 per million. In the US I would guess at about 20,000 murders, about 60 per million, probably half of them by gun? So Britain has about a quarter of your murder rate, and perhaps a 200th of your gun killing rate, almost entirely confined to a small criminal sub-culture.

If you want to know what a typical British murder looks like, read Agatha Christie!

Re:politicians.

[TeraCo]

They call in their rapid response force. I was in England after their (not so recent now) tube bombings, and for a 'disarmed police force' there sure were a lot of machine guns being carried around (One in three cops easily).

Re:politicians.

[Hankharpoon]

I actually have a orange controller bumper magnet, I hear i supported a pension for NY councilmen by buying it. I think its important to really show off what you believe.

Wow. cigs and beee

[Broken scope]

sold to a minor don't even warrant a class E felony, and they have prove harmful effects.

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[Lightwarrior]

Yes, but the NY Senate is thinking of the children. That's more important than any study, or even the proven fact that the courts will knock this bill down faster than you can say "waste of taxpayer dollars."

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[Anontroll]

The same level of violence and blood is regularly shown on prime time television shows like 24, CSI and ER.

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[Chosen Reject]

But think of the other effects a bill like this would have. No more FPSs and GTA-clones. You make the fear-mongering think-of-the-children-types happy AND the todays-games-have-no-creativity group happy. Its a win-win situation.

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[rhombic]

Yes, but with your V-chip(tm) you can make sure that Bobby and Suzi can't watch shows like 24, CSI, ER, or Nova (might have animals doing the nasty, ya know). Now if we could just get something that would make our computers into a Trusted Platform where we could set undefeatable settings preventing little Johnny from playing those aweful violent sexy games, then maybe the terrorists won't have won.

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[Jeff DeMaagd]

What is an indecent game sale? Is that when the cashier is naked when operating the register?

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[jellomizer]

It is a problem with Elected Politics. In order to keep elected you need to do "Think of the Children" Laws just so you can stay elected.
Candidate A. In my Last Term I lowered crime by 25%, added more funding for social services, The graduation to college rate is the highest in the world, and I lowered taxes by 40%.

Candidate B. I passed the law to save your kids from video game violance. I passed a law to insure that your kids will not hurt their knees when they fall, I passed a law that will make sure your kid will never talk to a homeless person again. All this for only a 10% increase in taxes.

Well yes these are exadarations. But the "Think of the Children" effect people on an emotional level while Saving Taxes, better use of funds reduction in crime is more of a Thinking type of thing. It is easier to sell emotion then thoughts.

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[Hatta]

I notice it says "sell or rent". I gather this means there's no prohibition against giving such a game to minors.

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[Anonymous Coward]

I never knew that bees were unlawful to be sold to minors.

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[lgw]

Very well put!

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[DrEldarion]

Now if we could just get something that would make our computers into a Trusted Platform Like game consoles? :)

Don't the current consoles have options to restrict access to ratings of your choice?

Re:Wow. cigs and beee

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the NY Senate is thinking of the children.

So, the pimply faced 16-year-old who forgets to check ID once is never going to vote? (I.e., convicted felons are stripped of the right to vote in the United States of America.)

That's sure thinking of (some subset of) the children!

Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[dctoastman]

Just ruled unconstitutional. C'mon, a "serious felony". What about movies with equivalent ratings? And books. Books have no rating systems at all. My six year old niece can go and buy any Diane Steel or Stephen King book and I would not recommend either to an immature audience.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[LionKimbro]

How is it unconstitutional?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If it's not Congress making a law, I don't understand how it's unconstitutional.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Z0mb1eman]

can go and buy any Diane Steel or Stephen King book and I would not recommend either to an immature audience. I dunno, I think I'd recommend Diane Steel or Stephen King books only to immature audiences... :p

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[drinkypoo]

If it's not Congress making a law, I don't understand how it's unconstitutional.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

HTH, HAND

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Broken scope]

Are you trying to be a smartass or are you seriously asking that? First it violates equal protection under the law. It only applies to videogames and ignores other forms of violent media. Cruel and unusual punishment. 4 years jail time and loss of voting rights among other things.( Yes you can have them reinstated but..) Second all states are bound by the US constitution. This is a state legislature doing this. Congress is the law making body. All laws are initially introduced in congress, either the house or the senate. If my interpretation is correct, congress more or less means legislative body.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[eln]

Even if you're right, and I don't think you are, this law is still unconstitutional because the New York State Constitution, Article I, Section 8, prohibits passing laws abridging the freedom of speech:

Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[CrashPoint]

Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[CompSci101]

Because in ratifying the Constitution, the states agree to abide by it? Maybe?

If anyone suing New York to shoot this law down can't get satisfaction from a state court (and I'd be utterly surprised if they didn't), they can take it to the Supreme Court and show that, as a matter of Constitutionality, this law violates the First Amendment and possibly the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment (as one other poster pointed out, under this law it's worse to sell video games to a kid than it is to sell cigarettes and alcohol. WTF??).

It will die, as it did in so many other states. And, again, it will waste a ton of money for New Yorkers when it goes to court to die.

C

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[jae471]

14th Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This has more-or-less been ruled to mean that Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8 apply to the States as well as Congress.

Also, if it doesn't explicitly violate the US Constitution, it may violate the NY Constitution.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not Congress making a law, I don't understand how it's unconstitutional.

Hurrr hurrrr... did the state ratify the Constitution? Yup, sure did. Looks like they agreed to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has agreed with this interpretation since Marbury vs Madison.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[jae471]

Because in ratifying the Constitution, the states agree to abide by it? Maybe?

Actually, no, at least not for states prior to the ratification of the 14th. Prior to 1868, it was only the federal government that was bound by the Constitution, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the Constitution.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[ajanp]

I can see it now...

Student: (enters room for medical school interview)

Interviewer: So my colleagues and I were looking over your resume and were impressed with all that you've accomplished over the years. Do you think anything stands out in particular?

Student: Well, I saved hundreds of lives working as lead EMT, I performed open-heart surgery on an airplane when a man was having a heart attack, and I delivered a woman's child while I was trapped in an elevator after 2 days without food or water.

Interviewer: Wow, quite a track record. The only problem I see with your resume is that you say you were convicted of a serious felony. Was this just a mistake on your application?

Student: No, I tried to buy GTA 4 when I was only 17 and they busted me for it. They tried me as an adult and in prison I shared a room with a pedophile murderer who made me perform unspeakable acts every night for over five years. I was traumatized, but with the help of constant therapy and hard work, I've been able to rebound.

Interviewer: Get the hell out of this office. We don't want your kind at our university.

Student: But, the wh-

Interviewer: Out! Before I call security.

Student: (Later that night) Goodbye cruel world....

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[denttford]

Except you can't preemptively sue to get rid of a bad law like this - someone has to be prosecuted and willing to forgo the plea offer and willing to be the object of a long long legal battle.

Agree or disagree with the reasoning, that's the way it is.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[seaturnip]

Can you read? Selling, not buying, is the crime.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[moranar]

I don't see how this law restricts that freedom. It's an idiotic law, certainly, but people aren't stopped from creating games directly because of it. It's maybe when they try to sell their creation that they might find difficulties.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that the law means you can say what you want, as long as nobody hears you?

I don't think that's a resonable interpretation. Restrictions on the sale of speech, based on the content of that speech, are restrictions on the speech itself.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Anonymous Coward]

"HTH, HAND"

Ooh, thanks for the flashback to 1998.

God you're a fucking loser.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Jeff DeMaagd]

So you're saying that the law means you can say what you want, as long as nobody hears you?

It's not a ban of the game in its entirety, it is a ban on direct sale to minors. I don't see how it is "nobody hears you", unless you are trying to push the idea that nobody over 18 plays games.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[hey!]

Actually, a method/means based distinction is more likely to pass constitutional scrutiny than a content based one. You can make driving through the neighborhood with a loudspeaker at 3am illegal while the same content spoken on a soapbox in the park is legal.

Now if you want to regulate the content of what is coming out over the loudspeaker, that triggers a lot of First Amendment tests. It's not impossible, but by in large the tests are reasonable and well constructed. You can forbid cigarrette advertising on billboards within a certain distance of a school, for example because (a) there is an important public interest at stake, and (b) the regulation is narrowly tailored to address that interest, meaning it doesn't sweep a lot of other things into its net. That's why the most common reason for laws to get chucked is "vaguness". You can't prohibit the prinitng of female breasts on the grounds that you need to restrict pornography, because not every picture of a breast is pornography.

It is quite possible to consider that one means of delivering, if you will, "warnography" might be considered more of a practical problem than another. In fact, by targetting sales to minors of a particular medium, the regulation is narrower than it might otherwise be. You might argue they should also do books, movies, graphic novels etc for the same reasons, but that's the kind of thing the courts don't like to get involved in: deciding what the best regulations should be or what a law might do. They prefer consider narrower question of what the law they are looking at actually does. Specifically, whether it does something that is not allowed.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Chris Burke]

It's pretty simple, really. Rather than risk accidentally selling a game to a minor which unbeknownst to the retailer fits the vague criterion of this law, they won't put the game on the shelves at all. Or any game they think might be illegal. Retailers don't want to card, and retailers don't want to be charged with felonies for accidentally selling a game to a minor.

If you are really interested in a more nuanced legal reasoning, try googling up the decisions of the court on every other law like this that has been passed ever. Every single one has been struck down by the courts on 1st Ammendment grounds.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[moranar]

You do know about R rated movies and magazines, don't you? How is this any different?

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[CrashPoint]

There aren't any laws against showing R-rated movies to minors, and any such laws would be struck down on the same Constitutional grounds as the numerous game laws were.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a felony to let an underaged person into an R rated movie. Notive that no one is complaining about that the ESRB assigns ratings to games, or that some stores will choose not to sell you games of certain ratings.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[d34thm0nk3y]

I don't see how this law restricts that freedom. It's an idiotic law, certainly, but people aren't stopped from creating games directly because of it. It's maybe when they try to sell their creation that they might find difficulties.

How is a government mandated age limit not a restriction?

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[moranar]

It's not a restriction on creation, but on sale. Quite a different thing.

Sorry if I repeat myself, but I can't explain it better than this: Freedom of speech would IMO be at stake if people were stopped from actually creating games. This law seems to address something different: make your game as violent or otherwise explicit, but stores can't sell it to minors. Happens in the rest of the world, mostly with R rated movies or reading material, and in some countries with games, too. PEGI is the equivalent of the ESRB in Europe, and videogames carry similar notices. I'm not actually sure about it being illegal to sell M rated games to minors, but it wouldn't surprise me. If their parents are ok with it, they can buy the games themselves, can't they? Ratings, mandated by law or not, haven't stopped anyone from creating porn, which is actually one of the most successful media industries anywhere, period.

I think some people confuse "a right to free speech" with "a right to free speech without consequences".

Though I realise I don't know enough of USA law to argue further. I understand that some (I'd say "most", but Bush did get reelected) people don't want to see their real or perceived freedoms curtailed, and that this ticks them off. Sorry about it, but
a) As others say, this law will probably get shot down soonish on constitutional grounds, so it'll be "just" a matter of misspent taxpayer's money. Sucks, I know. Won't be the last time, either.
b) If it was really that important to the USA /. public, they could pull their asses from their TiVOs or keyboards, and do something about it, instead of only making an effort to save doomed tv series. Seriously, if half the effort spent on the Firefly, Star Trek and Jericho went to a few good ads or commercials on a few select papers or tv channels, things could be different.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Chris Mattern]

It's not a restriction on creation, but on sale. Quite a different thing.

Yes, it is a restriction on sale, not creation, but *that is still a restriction on speech*. Speech is the act of communicating information from one person to another. Therefore, if you interfer with the transfer of information from one person to another, *you are restricting speech*. That is not just my opinion, that is legal fact in US law.

Chris Mattern

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Oktober Sunset]

distribution through sale of the game, also known as publication.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[10101001 10101001]

"8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. (Amended by vote of the people November 7, 2001.)" (emphasis mine) -- New York State Constitution (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/pdfs/cons2004.pdf )

Most states have similar laws in their constitution.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[LionKimbro]

I think the other posters are right--

It's not the 1st amendment that is violated, which, very clearly, is about laws passed by congress.

Rather, it has something to do with the 14th amendment, which seems to somehow bridge state and federal law in ways that are unknown to me.

But I mean- the 1st amendment *alone,* it's pretty clear- you can just read it-- it's *only* about Congress.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[LionKimbro]

Thank you;

I hadn't realized, before this conversation, how important the 14th Amendment was.

I don't see totally how that 14th amendment means that 1st amendment protections filter down to the states, but I suppose I can look at the court decisions to understand how that interpretation happened.

This has been very educational.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[LionKimbro]

What are "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?"

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[LionKimbro]

All laws are initially introduced in congress, either the house or the senate.

No; State laws are not introduced in Congress. They're introduced by whatever procedures the state governments have created for themselves. That's probably a Congress, but it's not the US Congress.

Are you trying to be a smartass or are you seriously asking that?

I know that we in the USA are rightly protective of our right to Free Speech. But "the 1st Amendment," as far as I can tell, doesn't protect us, save from laws passed by Congress. I mean, it's pretty clear: "Congress shall make no law..."

I am learning here that the 14th amendment has something to do with how Free Speech is protected by the Constitution, even over state laws. I don't understand how yet, but that seems to be what most people here are saying.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[Broken scope]

What I meant was a legislative branch. I was not trying to imply that state laws are introduced in the US congress.

Your analysis of "Congress shall..." makes no sense. Are you trying to say that our legal system which has had state laws overturned repeatedly by FEDERAL courts is doing it all wrong? Under your interpretation of that section, the federal government has no right to tell a state that a law it made is unconstitutional. The fact is that congress in that sense means any government legislative body.

Please note that I am no a Constitutional Lawyer/Scholar.

You should also note Article VI the Legal Status of the Constitution

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Please note this specific section

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"

All state level judges and legislative officers must abide by the constitution. The federal government is the supreme law of the land.

Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned

[LionKimbro]

All state level judges and legislative officers must abide by the constitution. The federal government is the supreme law of the land.

You are right, but the supreme law that "Congress shall make no law" is perfectly respected, even when State governments pass laws limiting free speech.

State governments are not branches of the Federal government. The congress of a given state government is not, (as far as I understand,) an extension of the federal government.

So, by the 1st amendment (taken alone,) state governments are not restricted by the 1st amendment.

Your analysis of "Congress shall..." makes no sense. Are you trying to say that our legal system which has had state laws overturned repeatedly by FEDERAL courts is doing it all wrong? Under your interpretation of that section, the federal government has no right to tell a state that a law it made is unconstitutional. The fact is that congress in that sense means any government legislative body.

No; Our legal system is right, but it's right because of further amendments to the constitution- not the first, taken alone.

Where I understand things get complicated, is the 14th amendment, which is where state laws (I am coming to understand) start to have their laws overturned by federal courts.

But before the 14th amendment, that was not the case, and the states were not barred by the 1st amendment from censoring.

A felony?!?

[Winckle]

I'm not a citizen of the USA, but I thought felonies were very serious crimes, like assault, or bodily harm. Not selling violent video games to children, yeah, it's probably a "bad" thing to do, but making it a felony seems a bit over the top.

Re:A felony?!?

[Tridus]

All you have to know to understand Americans these days (particularly politicians) is that they've lost all ability to view things in perspective. Thats why every time something new is made illegal (especially if its completely innane, like this), the sentences for breaking said law are so completely out of line as to be laughable. Just wait, pretty soon pirating a HD DVD will be right up there with rape (if its not there already).

Re:A felony?!?

[Detritus]

It's the modern politician's way of saying "we take this seriously". If the trend continues, we might end up with the death penalty for spitting on the sidewalk. New York has a history of passing draconian laws, such as the Rockefeller drug laws of the 1970s.

I was watching a documentary on the colonization of Australia, and it said that 18th century English law mandated the death penalty for a broad spectrum of offenses, many minor by today's standards. It seemed to have little effect on the crime rate.

Re:A felony?!?

[SadGeekHermit]

NOTE: IANAL. Just a New Yorker.

Generally,

A misdemeanor is a crime that is punishable by less than one year in a local jail rather than a state prison.

A felony is a crime that is punishable by more than one year in a state-owned prison or penitentiary.

That's what a felony is about -- length and location of sentence. By the way, this should make it even MORE "over the top" for you because local jails are relatively much safer and nicer than state prisons, which are hell-holes by comparison. Unless you live in NYC, in which case the local jails are the "tombs" (shudder).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tombs

Re:A felony?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, pirating media can get you a longer sentence than kiddie porn.

Re:A felony?!?

[Nilatir]

State owned? If you 'follow the money' you'll find why many simple crimes have become felonys. A good portion of state-owned prisons are privately run by contractors, who get more money for more prisoners.

Re:A felony?!?

[tighr]

All you have to know to understand Americans these days (particularly politicians) is that they've lost all ability to view things in perspective. Whoa whoa, whoa. Don't lump me in with the rest of those idiots. Perhaps you're the one who has lost perspective, thinking that all 300 million of us share the same viewpoints. Read almost all the other comments here from fellow Americans who quite clearly see that this is not a good law.

P.S.- My captcha: caring

Re:A felony?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

When i was 12 years old 4 of us threw snowballs at an opposing schools basketball team on their school bus and a mirror was broken. Being destruction of government property it was a felony malicious mischief charge and kept us from voting or carrying a gun (We all hunt) for 7 years. That and we had to pay 43 dollars in restitution.

Re:A felony?!?

[SadGeekHermit]

That's so depressing on so many levels.

Re:A felony?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought felonies were very serious crimes, like assault, or bodily harm

No, some of our laws are batshit crazy. Assault is a misdemeanor, while growing certain plants is a felony.

A friend of mine who drove a cab for a living was shot to death by a man who was robbing him as he dropped off a fare at a housing project. The armed robber who shot and killed my friend spent two years in prison.

Meanwhile, another friend's brother spent five years in a federal prison for loaning money to a cocaine dealer. He had no cocaine nor sold no cocaine, he just loaned the drug dealer money. Unfortunately for my friend's brother, the dealer had been busted and was looking for a reduced sentence. My friend's brother spent 5 years while the drug dealer he loaned the money to spent two years.

(yes, some of my friends have unsavory relatives. So don't fuck with me:)

-mcgrew

Re:A felony?!?

[Bent Mind]

All you have to know to understand Americans these days (particularly politicians) is that they've lost all ability to view things in perspective. Not only has the electorate, in general, lost all semblance of perspective, they've also completely lost the ability to separate fantasy from reality. They seriously believe that banning the fantasy will eliminate to reality.

Re:A felony?!?

[oGMo]

Just wait, pretty soon pirating a HD DVD will be right up there with rape (if its not there already).

I believe rape gets you 3-5 years, whereas copyright violation can get you 10 and a $250k-per-incident fine. Just goes to show what our politicians really value.

Politicians = Gerbils

[Psmylie]

They never seem to stop running in circles. I think they actually enjoy it. When this gets defeated in court, they'll just introduce another, extremely similar bill, which will also be defeated. Gotta keep spending that tax money!

Re:Politicians = Gerbils

[jswigart]

Reminds me of the old Lemmings game. It's too bad they don't have a self destruct button.

Re:Politicians = Gerbils

[jandrese]

Yeah, but next time they run for office their TV ads will include the phrase "Representative Tool worked hard to keep corrupting influences out of the hands of children, because Representative Tool cares about the children."

Just go to kid-whose-parents-dont-care's house

[192939495969798999]

We all knew the kid growing up who had the porn, whose parents didn't care, and who had the latest violent-est video game. I guarantee that this will not slow down kids' exposure to such games, because they'll all just congregate at ol'johnny's house to play re-bloodening 3. It might slow down individual sales, but if exposure to the game is the problem, then consider it as unsolved as ever. In fact, making the games harder to get usually makes them more attractive to kids, as in "this one must be really bad, lets go to johnny's and see!"

Re:Just go to kid-whose-parents-dont-care's house

[drinkypoo]

I guarantee that this will not slow down kids' exposure to such games, because they'll all just congregate at ol'johnny's house to play re-bloodening 3. [...] In fact, making the games harder to get usually makes them more attractive to kids, as in "this one must be really bad, lets go to johnny's and see!"

You're forgetting another exciting factor. Johnny is usually the kid with the least parental supervision. He probably has a twisted little worldview and will get your kids into trouble.

I knew kids who had all the stuff who were and weren't like that, but anyway.

Re:Just go to kid-whose-parents-dont-care's house

[TerranFury]

We all knew the kid growing up who had the porn

In the year 2007, that's any kid with an Internet connection.

Re:Just go to kid-whose-parents-dont-care's house

[basic0]

"if exposure to the game is the problem, then consider it as unsolved as ever"

Yeah, until they introduce a bill to make it a felony to use parental discretion and buy whatever video games you see fit for your children. Followed shortly thereafter by the bill to prevent pregnant women from playing violent video games because it may give the unborn fetus unwholesome thoughts. Followed shortly by the bill to prevent grown men from playing violent video games because some questionable scientific paper will claim it may make them produce "violent sperm" that will develop babies with violent tendencies should it fertilize an egg. Followed by a ban on the phrase "violent video games" because it might cause some people to have thoughts of "illegal activities" (which would conveniently make it a crime to challenge the "v*****t v***o g***s" legislation without using indirectly, flimsy language).

This sounds familiar.

Re:Just go to kid-whose-parents-dont-care's house

[Anonymous Coward]

As if a lot of parental supervision guarantees a child will not be "twisted"...

Re:Just go to kid-whose-parents-dont-care's house

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they will pass a law which will take litt;e ol' johnny away from his "uncaring" parents.

Re:Just go to kid-whose-parents-dont-care's house

[Anonymous Coward]

whose parents didn't care
Or maybe Johnny's parents knew that some porn and video games wouldn't turn him into a mass-murdering pedophile.

Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[Applekid]

Well, there goes my idea of opening a game shop where all the employees are topless women.

You mean to tell me I can't sell games indecently? Oh, the sorrow. I guess I'll just open it up in New Jersey.

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[MS-06FZ]

Well, there goes my idea of opening a game shop where all the employees are topless women. You call that "indecent"? I think it's delightful!

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[Rycross]

Best... idea... ever!

C'mon man, don't make me move to New Jersey. :(

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[Guppy06]

"Well, there goes my idea of opening a game shop where all the employees are topless women."

You'll likely scare away most of your customers; they're not accustomed to the real thing.

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[drinkypoo]

You'll likely scare away most of your customers; they're not accustomed to the real thing.

I think it's a good idea, provided that you install a non-slip floor and a drain. Otherwise the saliva may become a problem.

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[Achoi77]

I had to do a once-over on the title, I really interested in reading a summary about how NY was going to arrest private business owners for failing to sell enough video games, enough to be considered a decent sale.

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[Serzen]

To the contrary! This is New York, where it's perfectly legal for a woman to be topless anywhere a man can be. So open your shop on private property and have at it.

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[evil_aar0n]

New Jersey?? "The horror..."

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[VWJedi]

I was a little worried when I read this...

I think it's a good idea, provided that you install a non-slip floor and a drain.

Uh-oh...

Otherwise the saliva may become a problem.

Whew! Saliva... ok then...

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[VWJedi]

To the contrary! This is New York, where it's perfectly legal for a woman to be topless anywhere a man can be. So open your shop on private property and have at it.

Even if women are allowed to be topless there, the fact that you are paying them to be might constitute a problem.

Re:Indecent Game Sales? No way!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the...saliva. Yeah.

Political Chicanery

[onetwentyone]

They can point out constitutional problems and still decide to vote for it knowing it can be overturned; sounds like a whole lot of political "I need something for my re-election" garbage. I imagine the exceedingly gross penalty stands for nothing more than a Get Tough (tm) on non-crimes stance.

Honestly, what is happening in this country where we've lost sight of what really matters?

Re:Political Chicanery

[berashith]

I have a serious issue with someone who has sworn to uphold and protect a document knowingly commiting an act that violates it. I would love a rule/law where when a public servant has voted positively for enough ( 3 , 5 ) items that get overturned as unconstitutional that they would lose their rights to be a public servant.

Of course, since this was passed by a state law, which are reserved under the federal constitution to be allowed to do quite a bit, I am not certain which constitution we are in violation of here.

Re:Wow. cigs and beer

[Broken scope]

Oh god my... I can't believe i wrote that...

Sad

[mulvane]

I actually at first thought to myself 'Is this for real or an onion piece?', but then it dawned on me that such bad legislation is par for the course. Sure one could say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but come on, ignorance of what someone else may think of as violent or indecent contrary to an already established rating system? I'm in the military, and I value what this country was built upon, but I have serious problems with what it has become and where it is going. The vote of the people doesn't even matter anymore. Content publishers and big money pay wages to the political machine that far outweighs the repercussions of going against popular belief and thinking of the people they are supposed to serve.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

"...I'm in the military, and I'm in the military, and I value what this country was built upon, but I have serious problems with what it has become and where it is going., but I have serious problems with what it has become and where it is going..."

Umm. Then why are you still in the military? Or, for that matter, in this country?

Having said that, I'm not so sure about the accuracy of your imagined feelings. You probably meant to say "I value what I was taught this country was built upon", but you should be aware that it was really built on greed and violence, and given a crispy sugar coating of patriotism to justify the murder.

So it hasn't really changed. You've just got older.

Re:Sad

[mulvane]

Your argument has many retorts that all have different views depending on your heritage. The original settlers fought to escape that greed imposed on them by Britain. Then, you could say the greed they had for what they had fought and won brought them into more fights. I also understand that what we fought and won wasn't really ours to take and or keep based on the fact someone (indians/native americans) already inhabited this land. But ALL nations were built around greed and expansionism and any country that didn't do that no longer exist or never had anything worth claiming anyway.

Just stop at parental controls.

[PFI_Optix]

I've got no issue with a law requiring that consoles have parental controls so that parents can decide what rating level is appropriate for their kids and lock out the rest. That way they can control content without having to avoid consoles entirely.

I don't see anyone whining about the V-chip, so what would be the problem with a ratings filter on consoles?

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[mulvane]

Nothing!! That is just the solution actually.. Leave the parenting to the parent and make parents responsible. Sadly, most parents want it the other way around anymore.
Who has time to be bothered by a troublesome kid.
Sure glad the kids at school, now I can have some peace.
Isn't there some kind of camp or afterschool activity I can send my kid to
Why don't you go play over at some one elses house

Parents don't raise their kids anymore, they expect government to do it, and government in turn wants to put THEIR religious and moral beliefs on our children, and punish the parents who disagree with THEIR views.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[PFI_Optix]

You don't know the same parents I do.

Most parents I know think they are at war with the schools because schools (an extension of the government) are trying undermine them as parents and raise the kids however they see fit. They whine and complain when the schools assign a lot of homework because "we don't have time to do anything as a family".

Of course, all they do as a family is eat fast food while watching TV before the kids lock themselves in their rooms for the evening so that Susie can show her boobs to boys on the internet while Johnny takes emo pictures and writes in his blog about how his parents hate him because they won't buy him the BMW he wants.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[Kiashien]

As far as I am aware, all current-gen consoles support this, with some flaws.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[mulvane]

I consider myself, as does my wife teachers as well. We don't like homework in excess, but we use school homework as family time with our kids. We sit down, help them with it, explain things they don't fully understand, and put our learned spin on things so they have multiple views to expose them to things having more than one way to be solved. Our kids eat usually home cooked meals with us. Eating out is used for days that have excess stuff (doctors appt's and or such things), and pizza on pay days (twice monthly).

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[gstoddart]

I've got no issue with a law requiring that consoles have parental controls so that parents can decide what rating level is appropriate for their kids and lock out the rest.

The whole problem with this, or putting stuff on computers to allow parents to restrict what their children do, is that in most households, the kids are the ones doing the tech suppoprt and setting up the electronics for the family

People who grew up always having computers and most of our modern technology know way more about it than their parents.

In all likelihood, the parents would need to ask the kids how to enable the parental controls.

Cheers

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[DeadChobi]

You're like a teacher's dream family. More parents should be like that.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[PFI_Optix]

I should hope so, there's no sense in not having it.

So let the politicians make a law requiring that:

-any device primarily designed for playing games (to exclude PCs)

-with interchangable games (this excludes the Atari clones with preinstalled games but no cartridges, as you know what you're buying when you buy it)

-that can carry any rating other than E (this excludes the educational systems like Leapfrog and V-Smile) ...be equipped with parental controls allowing parents to set a specific maximum rating allowed. It could also require that such a system support complex alphanumeric passwords--a maximum length of at least 12 characters would be sufficient--and come with a small pamphlet explaining the parental controls and explaining the need for a strong password, so that parents actually do have control over the electronic devices they purchased.

Such a bill could also call for more thorough parental controls that allow filtering by specific content classifications (violence, sexuality, et cetera) in the next generation of consoles. This way a parent who thought their child could handle sexuality at one rating level and violence at another could set up specific filters according to their child and possibly open the system up to allow a few more games.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[PFI_Optix]

Are you aware that the average parent that needs to be concerned with parental controls these days grew up with computers and programmable VCRs and such?

If you started your family at 25 (which is on the high side of average iirc) and you have a 13-year-old, then you were born around 1969 (give or take a year depending on when your and your kid's birthdays fall). Making you a teenager of the 80s. You know, back when the kids really *were* the only ones who knew how to program the VCR.

This argument of "parents don't get it anyway" is ancient, and it's increasingly inaccurate. Parental controls have become quite user-friendly when implemented correctly and most parents of young kids today are comfortable with technology. You must think parents of young teens are just ancient...they're in their mid-30s.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[Scrameustache]

I don't see anyone whining about the V-chip That's because you aren't paying attention.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[gstoddart]

This argument of "parents don't get it anyway" is ancient, and it's increasingly inaccurate.

I'm not saying everyone with kids is clueless about their computers and the like, but I see a lot of news stories saying the average teenager spends 5-10 hours/week being the family tech support and helping mom and dad out with online stuff they don't know how to do.

You must think parents of young teens are just ancient...they're in their mid-30s.

I'm in my late 30's, so I have a pretty good idea of what age range we're talking about.

But, I also know a tremendous amount of people in their 30's who don't interact with computers or know anything about them. It's just simply not part of their lives.

The point is, that, yes, many parents know how to do such things. But, many don't and are really incapable of knowing how to police their kids activities on computers and the like. Much of society isn't yet computer literate believe it or not. As much as we use them all of the time, there are people who actually don't.

Cheers

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[Aladrin]

Man, if only there was a way that parents could -choose- what electronics they buy for their children, and force the companies to do the right thing because it's profitable, instead of mandated. It's really too bad that they are forced to buy certain products and have no say-so at all.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[PFI_Optix]

There's a big difference between "online stuff" and parental controls.

Parents aren't going to have the time or inclination to fully explore social networking sites, but might want a primer from their kids so they can use them for whatever reason. I'm 29 and an admitted 'net junkie, but there is a LOT I simply can't keep up with myself that my college-aged friends can...they have the free time.

I'm fully aware that the average parent isn't as tech-savvy as they need to be, which is why I pointed out that parental controls are getting better and better about accommodating them. That's also why I suggested in a reply to someone else in this thread that the consoles should come with a booklet/paper/whatever specifically for explaining parental controls, what they do, and how to effectively use them...including a brief explanation of what is and is not a secure password.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[jedidiah]

Obviously you have no real experience in this area.

The wife is an engineer and has been using PCs since they ran DOS. The 4 year old kid already has more of an understanding of consumer electronics tech than her. Kids these days end up with a pretty high level of geek-fu just by default.

Kids are simply more adaptable. It's a part of how young and mostly empty brains operate. They will always have the upper hand in an environment subject to rapid change (like technology).

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[PFI_Optix]

This works great in theory, until little Johnny spends the next three years whining because you bought console A and EVERYBODY ELSE has console B.

Parental controls cost practically nothing against the development of a new console. It shouldn't be an issue at all to require them as an option to be used or ignored as parents see fit.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[PFI_Optix]

Obviously. I mean, I'm only an IT worker at a school district who is married to a teacher with an education in psychology with a focus on child development. I know nothing at all about how kids' brains develop or the ability of young people to adopt technology.

Understanding consumer electronics these days is just knowing what products are available and how to operate their UIs. There's really very little understanding required to be able to operate any given media player or console. Kids can spout off the specs of some of these devices, but that doesn't mean they have any grasp on the underlying technologies.

I remember my friends going on and on about 16-bit graphics on the newest round of consoles. I also remember not a single one of them being able to explain to me what that meant or why it was good, except that 16-bit is better than 8-bit. Kids haven't changed since then, they still just know the hyped buzzwords and which button does what.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[mdarksbane]

And yet what teachers hate most about parents it that they don't spend any time HELPING their children with their homework.

Half of the difference between the kid getting straight A's in reading and the kid failing spelling is whether their parents read to them and help them with their spelling homework.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that most new consoles already have this functionality built in. I know at least the Xbox and 360 do. I can't vouch for the PS2, PS3 Gamecube or Wii.

Re:Just stop at parental controls.

[demi]

First off, I'll say that this sounds like an awful law: unconscionably vague, with ridiculous penalties for infractions. I wouldn't stand for it, but fortunately I don't think it will stand. And even more fortunately, I don't live in New York.

But if you argue against any sort of restriction like this (I'll leave aside for the moment whether it's a law or universal observance of a voluntary ratings board), what you're arguing for is decreasing the ability of a parent to decide what their kid will be exposed to. You're arguing for the "right" to sell whatever content you want to my kid without my knowledge.

Advocates of your position argue incessantly for parental responsibility. But that's not what you want. You want me to raise my kids your way (for example, in an irreligious way), exposing them to materials you think are harmless (for example, because I'm a prude and you're not). You want parents to deal with the question of violent video games in the way you think fit, not them. You're arguing to require me to allow my children to buy violent video games, no matter how young, no matter the content of the game, and not to make the decision for my family, as you suggest on the surface.

In a free society there is a tension between the society's responsibility to foster the upbringing of children, the rights of individuals and the rights of parents to be able to carry out their own responsibilities. I think reasonable people can probably agree that it's best to have no special restrictions for the most part, except for a few things that are generally agreed to be objectionable, in which case it's a parent's right to act as gatekeeper for their child and decide what possibly objectionable movies, weapons, drugs, video games go into them.

No one's rights are abrogated by having to prove age to buy liquor, cigarettes, weapons, pornography or other things generally agreed to be questionable for children. On the other hand, the idea of arguing for the absolute right to sell these things to young children without their parents' knowledge is pernicious.

I'd never support making potentially objectionable content illegal. I think the obscenity standards and laws we already have are too much, and the legal framework in which someone like Paul Reubens can be hassled for his collection of vintage magazines (as he was in California), or where it's illegal for an adult to even view "violent pornography" (as in the United Kingdom), or where sexy comic books are seized at the border (as in Canada), or where the government decides that some games may not be sold at all--to adults (as in Australia): these are all offensive to me and the notion of a free society.

But I hardly think having to ask for your violent porn and show you're of age counters anyone's rights. On the contrary, it results in much more being permitted at the extreme, and fewer restrictions on content producers overall. If game companies could be assured that their most violent or sexual games were never landing in the hands of minors, doesn't that free them further to create more violent, sexual or extreme content?

So..

[Vexorian]

Kids will just download games like they already do.

They were damn smart at making it a felony to sell and not give away else I can think of the American army getting jailed for a serious felony...

Who cares?

[JesseBikman]

Just card everybody if you sell video games to people. It shouldn't be a felony but hey, every country needs its criminals...

Re:Who cares?

[Broken scope]

What good will carding do? The terms used as a guideline are so vague that a T rated game could get you in trouble if a parent and a prosecutor felt that it was "indecent". Sure, you could throw the charges off with a good lawyer but they cost money and the state doesn't usually pay for your court expenses. If your like the average store clerk your kinda fucked at that point. Sure, you didn't get a felony on your record but you had to take a loan out to pay for your lawyer.

Re:Who cares?

[JesseBikman]

Hmmmm. Sounds like a compelling reason to not buy video games in the state of New York. What is wrong with our country?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this doesn't get overturned, it isn't going to fuck over the clerk in the long run (though getting a felony is good way to not get future jobs), because target, wal-mart, and bestbuy are going to stop carrying these games that have such a liability attatched to them. So these violent games will stop being made because they'll stop being sold. But it will get overturned. The video game industry may not have payed their lobbyists enough, but they'll make up for it now.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The state may not pay your bills, but usually the ACLU does...

They just made a mockery of the legal system

[Hubbell]

I can have a verbal dispute with someone, and punch them in the face, and get a MISDEMEANOR charge, but if I sell a video game to a kid I can get a felony?
This is outright fucking ridiculous and everyone who voted in favor of this bill needs to have their rights to procreation and input on any subject revoked for the good of society and the gene pool.

This is New York we're talking about

[fistfullast33l]

Knee Jerk reactions by the legislature are not new to New Yorkers. I have three words: Rockefeller Drug Laws. At the time they were the harshest penalties in the United States for drug possession. From the article:

the penalty for selling two ounces ... or more of heroin, morphine, ... opium, cocaine, or ... marijuana .... or possessing four ounces or more of the same substances, was made the same as that for second-degree murder

So this isn't an overreaction by the New York Senate - it's standard operating procedure! Even better, the laws weren't reformed for over 20 years. Just goes to show why we're the most dysfunctional state government in the country.

honest question

[Pojut]

We all know that 1st degree murder is a big nono....but do they put extra charges on top of the murder charges if you kill someone in front of a kid but then leave the kid unharmed?

No?

I thought not.

Re:honest question

[Gabrill]

great, now some votes-lagging senator will read that, and prove you wrong by writing it into his next bill.

Re:honest question

[Pojut]

....I just pwned us.

My bad :(

Re:honest question

[VWJedi]

You think senators read slashdot? I find it hard to believe that anyone reads the comments posted here would want to be within a mile of serving in public office.

Re:honest question

[demi]

Even if not encoded in the law--and I'll bet in at least some jurisdictions there is a general circumstance that could be applied for an additional penalty here--I think it would, overall, result in a more likely conviction and a more severe penalty. Any crime that seems worse to a jury is easier to sell to them, and the easier the sell the more likely the conviction, the less likely a plea-bargain (or the greater the penalty that needs to be agreed to in the bargain) and the greater the penalty that can be sought.

I guess you could think of that as market forces, of a kind, at work, rather than regulatory ones.

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[drinkypoo]

I don't think removing fingers is the answer. I think mandatory sterilization for both parents is. Stop them from doing it again. Besides, they are going to need those fingers to flip my burgers and salt my fries, and to take things off the rack at K-Mart and the dollar store.

Need responsible legislators

[RichMan]

Proposal:

Should a legislator vote for a law/bill later found by a court to be unconstitutional that legistlator shall immediatly be dismissed from their post having been essentially found to be "acting against the constitution". Such shall not apply to direct attempts to modify the constitution.

Re:Need responsible legislators

[Maximum Prophet]

Wow, that would be workable if it was like a three strikes thing. The first two times it happened (in one term) the lawmaker would have to sit out the next three votes. After the third, he's outta there. The count could reset with each term. To sweeten the pot, any legislator who was ousted would lose the right to run for office or vote for awhile, and have a large 'U' branded/tattooed on their forehead.

You could extend this idea to DA's that abuse their power in unconstitutional ways.

Re:Need responsible legislators

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer they be drawn and quartered. Live. On C-SPAN

Re:Need responsible legislators

[SoulRider]

Make them pay the costs for getting an unconstitutional bill passed.

Re:Need responsible legislators

[justinlee37]

To sweeten the pot, any legislator who was ousted would lose the right to run for office or vote for awhile, and have a large 'U' branded/tattooed on their forehead.

I think you get bonus irony points for suggesting that we inflict "cruel and unusual punishment" on constitution violators.

Re:Need responsible legislators

[Anonymous Coward]

Pah, in China they would just execute the dodgy legislator.

Re:Need responsible legislators

[SuperGlucose]

Well, you know that congress will never EVER vote to place restrictions on themselves. But I thank whoever is out there every day that soon the video game generation will enter politics. Only five to twenty years until first gen gamers are old enough (assuming they were 10 in 1984, they'd be thirty five, but people rarely get elected before age fifty.) to inflict major changes on the US government. Until the restrictions on video games are lessening, I'm calling this the 'war on video games.' The period began in 1984, and still rages on today, with video games losing the war.

Screw the children, think of the adults.

[Blackknight]

Am I the only one that's tired of having their life inconvenienced for everybody's else's children? It's not my fault you're too lazy to watch what your kids are buying/playing. Why is the New York legislature even wasting time on this?

Re:Screw the children, think of the adults.

[markbt73]

If I had mod points, I'd do something about that "flamebait," but since I don't, I'll just agree with you.

If I see the phrase "kid-friendly" one more time I'm gonna hurt somebody. Things intended for mature rational adults should be the default, and they would be, if only we had more mature rational adults...

Re:Screw the children, think of the adults.

[StryfeX]

Why the hell was this modded 'flamebait'? The parent is completely correct in saying that parents should be parents and therefore responsible for their what their children watch and do.

Re:Screw the children, think of the adults.

[corbettw]

Am I the only one that's tired of having their life inconvenienced for everybody's else's children?

Have you ever stopped to think that when a politician says they're thinking "of the children", they're actually thinking of adults whom they view as children? Why do you think welfare states are referred to as "nanny states"? Because the government fulfills the role of parent to the childish adults who voted it into power. Those are the "children" these politicians are seeking to control/protect, not some five year old.

Re:Screw the children, think of the adults.

[RyoShin]

Why is the New York legislature even wasting time on this?

It's their Homosexual Agenda.

By wasting time on a frivolous bill such as this, they do two things:

1) They distract the public from the realization of real problems (crime, poverty, etc.), even if only for a bit.
2) They make it look like they can get things done.

Nevermind that this bill is pointless and unconstitutional (and will be ruled as such shortly), this makes it seem like they are doing the job they are elected for: being concerned for their constituents. For the vast majority of people, even if they don't necessarily like the bill, they won't see much harm in it, because they won't dwell on it that long. And in making it seem like they are doing something, it makes the public just a tiny bit less alarmed about the real problems facing them. They might think that this was an "easier" decision to get through and so came earlier, and the rest will be just behind it.

I think that's the real reason we ever see stupid bills like this- it's not the politicians being stupid (well, maybe that too), it's them being smart and knowing that it will be overturned, but passing it makes it look like they're doing something anyway.

You boys want this shut down?

[Daimando]

You know what to do. Contact the ESA, tell them about this law. Contact the judges, inform them. Contact the New York Government. Give em your criticisms. Remember, our voices speak louder.

Re:You boys want this shut down?

[CogDissident]

Since when? Voting machines don't mean anything since they went digital, so politicians don't care about our votes, just that it "seems" like they could have gotten the majority of votes.

I'll trust voting machines when I'm nolonger convinced that I could vote 10,000 times with just a weeks effort making a fake voting card and just rapid-swiping it.

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[linzeal]

Why not give every child in the USA the right to choose to be independent of their parents at any time. I can't think of how many children I have tutored over the years that got progressively less responsive to the challenge of educating themselves because the parents were less and less encouraging as they surpassed them in intelligence. Children if it is their wont should be able to live amongst their peers starting from a very early age.

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[drinkypoo]

Why not give every child in the USA the right to choose to be independent of their parents at any time.

Why not give every child in the USA the means, while you're at it?

What states don't have youth emancipation laws?

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[Johnny5000]

YOU SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LICENSE TO HAVE CHILDREN.

I'll go one better.
Everyone should be sterilized at birth for free.
If you want kids bad enough, you can pay out of your own pocket to get it reversed.

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[Kohath]

His point is extremely silly. A "license" to have children really gets the government out of parenting, doesn't it?

I think a "loose" finger explains the all-caps though.

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[linzeal]

They may have the laws but the parents are almost always given the benefit of the doubt. California, Arizona and Texas are some of the worst offenders often sending children back to be beaten up and molested because the social workers are overworked and underpaid. What is needed is a system that guarantees independence free of adults if the child so wishes. I really don't think the nuclear family or the foster family have produced consistent enough results to be used as models.

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[drinkypoo]

What is needed is a system that guarantees independence free of adults if the child so wishes.

I don't think that most adults are competent to operate without supervision - and even less children.

Perhaps they should not be with their parents. But in only very few cases should they be without any.

the tags! You forgot one!

[N3wsByt3]

It should also be tagged 'thinkofthechildren'!

While I laugh at the silly (part of the) USA where this sort of crap is passed, the sad thing is, I have a feeling that it will blow over to europe sooner or later too.

The influence of the USA is just too insidious to stop it, certainly with the open backdoor they have in the EU with their fellow-anglo-saxon-mentality country; the UK.

I even fear the day, EU-countries will begin to mandate ID has to be learned at school too.

It's actually one of the reasons I support (moderate) anti-americanism (not defined in the classical broad way). I think we're far too much influenced by how the US wants to see the world and we're *obliging* it far too many times. I don't understand that from our top-politicians; even when they do not agree with what the US says or does, they still buckle in the end. They cave in every god damn time...well, how is a bully ever going to learn his lesson, if he always gets his way?

I truelly wished we weren't so damn weak. you can't say what a strong europe we have (as out politicians do) and then show you cave in to every demand. If we don't make ourself stronger (in international affairs), in 20 years, we will cave in to china too.

I think it's mainly a problem from the EU political-structure; it just sucks. We should get rid of that commision of unelected bureacrats, and just vote directly for a president. As it is now, it pains me to acknowledge that the EU, seen on a worldscale, is a wussy.

Re:the tags! You forgot one!

[meringuoid]

The influence of the USA is just too insidious to stop it, certainly with the open backdoor they have in the EU with their fellow-anglo-saxon-mentality country; the UK.

Speaking as a British eurofederalist, it's painful to admit it, but de Gaulle was right. We should never have been allowed in, and for that very reason. We're a vassal of Uncle Sam, and that's not going to change however much we pretend to be good Europeans. Sometimes I think we should be kicked out post-haste, especially when we act up.

Still, we were about the only place in the union to stick to that bit about free movement of labour when the East joined up :-)

Re:the tags! You forgot one!

[N3wsByt3]

"Speaking as a British eurofederalist, it's painful to admit it, but de Gaulle was right. We should never have been allowed in, and for that very reason."

We're in full agreement, then.

I don't mind the UK becomming part of the EU on itself, but you guys have got to decide: you're either part of Europe, or an unofficial state of the USA. (Or even, just remain an independend island without outspoken allegiances one way or another). But fuck, I hate the current mentality of eating from both hands, and at the same time biting both hands (though biting mostly EU-hands, because we're such wussies and you guys know it). I have the feeling that the biggest obstacle holding the EU back is, in fact, the UK.

Frankly, we should just kick you out, and wait untill you really made up your mind what way you want to go. I still remember the ones protesting the loudest against an EU-army, was the EU. The concept of an EU with two speeds (thus, countries that wanted to go further with the integration of the EU) was stopped by the UK. I mean; why? If YOU don't want to go any further, fine! But why make a ruckus if others DO want to go further?

And then to form a fist towards the USA...well, difficult to do, if you have a snake at ones' heart that willfully weakens any internal resolve. I mean, if you like the USA so much and agree to their every whim (as especially Blair does), THEN QUIT the EU and join the US.

hmm...sorry for the rant, I got carried away.

"Sometimes I think we should be kicked out post-haste, especially when we act up. "

Hm, I see we are in agreement on that too, thus. Well, you're the proof not all hope is lost. You guys should just get your act together and finally decide where you belong to; the US, the EU, or none. In all honesty, I don't think we *should* let you guys in...it's just that ALL anglo-saxon countries seem to be heading the same way lately. And that's the USA's way.

Why the fuck should I care about stupid politics.

[OldHawk777]

I can use daddy's gun, and play daddy's game.
I can't by a gun, I can't buy a game.
Why the fuck should I care about stupid politics?

I shot the sheriff

[CrazyJim1]

A8696 seeks to apply real-world standards of violence to the fictional and fanciful world of video games

And you Jim, what have you to say for your 12 counts of GTA, 3514 counts of assault, 151 murders of police officers, and 312 FBI agents dead?
"They had what was coming to them. Charlie was stepping on my turf, and they shouldn't have got between us."

We have all heard your testimony of your video game rampage, and have no other recourse but to sentence you to 29 deaths by lethal injections. After which we will release you back onto the street in front of the hospital with 100% health.

Classic systems have no parental controls..

[LordJezo]

The NES, SNES, Genesis, Atari, Game Boy, etc.

None of them have parental controls. Does that mean selling classic systems is illegal? Or do the old ones get grandfathered in?

Re:Classic systems have no parental controls..

[Constantine XVI]

Neither does the Nintendo DS. The current best-selling game system is now illegal in New York, which is also the location of Nintendo World. Way to go NY

Re:Classic systems have no parental controls..

[Anonymous Coward]

Handheld systems aren't consoles.

Re:Classic systems have no parental controls..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just going to pretend I didn't just read something that stupid.

Re:Classic systems have no parental controls..

[Loconut1389]

and do you think the law separates that minor distinction? I'd call it a portable console. Is the PSP not a console then either?

Re:Classic systems have no parental controls..

[Alchemar]

But the DS has a similar, but even better parental control than the rest of the game systems. You go look at what you kid is playing, and if it something that you have told them not to play. You take the game system out of their hand and place it in your pocket. The other systems have the incovenience of forcing you to unplug the unit and find a bulkier space like the master bedroom.

What does New York Hope to Gain?

[dogs4ar]

I am confused by the mindless shuffling of politicians,these days. Anyone with any sense should see that this will only increase downloads of video games, driving out businesses attempting to make it in the New York area.

Expect to see many more video games shops in New Jersey, unless the market merely collapses. Also, this doesn't affect online retailers, so folks like Amazon and Gamespy can expect more revenue thanks to Daddy's stolen credit card (this will have the knock-on effect of turning kids into wire fraud artists).

It won't do a thing about kids' access to violent video games. Kids will get into all sorts of mischief despite their parents' interests. Oh well, politics as usual.

Re:What does New York Hope to Gain?

[sesshomaru]

On the plus side, if things get bad enough there are 5 families that will have a new sideline....

A *felony*

[Etherwalk]

Is ridiculous for this. Make it a misdemeanor if you want, sure, but... this is just ridiculous. The legislature should have to pay for the excessive prison time out of their own pockets.

I swear officer

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought he would respawn!

kekekeke >.

Re:I swear officer

[SubliminalVortex]

I'm sure he does. But it seems all the Politicians are campers.

Call it like it is.

[Lethyos]

I get the strong feeling this story should have tags “hilary” and “clinton”.

Children

[Anonymous Coward]

The senate seems to have no fear of possible overturn of the bill, and claims it's only thinking like children

There, fixed that for ya

I know this sounds wrong...

[brkello]

but I am beginning to hate the children. They keep getting in the way of all our fun. Maybe we should have less children so we don't have to think of them so much.

Re:I know this sounds wrong...

[The One and Only]

Actually, most people in industrialized countries have been doing just that for decades. But politicians are old and they grew up during the baby boom, when we were flooded with children and the older generations were conveniently thinned by warfare and infectious disease. Now that we've cured infectious diseases and stopped having kids, we have lots of old people and a fair amount of adults but not many children.

Re:I know this sounds wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not 'less' children, but 'fewer' children.

Re:I know this sounds wrong...

[brkello]

I bet you don't get invited to parties for being like that.

Who needs proof? Easy political points!

[Drake42]

A) See wildly unconstitutional bill, supported by a zealous minority.
B) Realize that if you vote for it the zealots will vote for you and if not they'll bully you in the media.
C) Realize that the bill will be immediately overturned by the judiciary, who are not under the same vote pressure.
D) Pass the bill, reap the rewards, trust the judges to do their jobs and shut down the bill.

Lame, cheap and easy. All it costs is voter money and wasted time, but tax money is free so who cares!

This is why we call it politics instead of governance.

Re:Who needs proof? Easy political points!

[PhxBlue]

You forgot: E) Condemn "activist judges" to keep favor with the zealots.

Re:Who needs proof? Easy political points!

[SubliminalVortex]

With regards to (A), I agree. With regards to (B), that's something to be determined. I recall viewing a program not too long ago where the religious zealot masters were themselves being hounded by the media for their multi-million dollar estates and extravagant expenses; (C) The Judiciary doesn't have the same vote pressure, but hopefully you have the correct panel of judges (that were, if I'm not mistaken, voted in by politicians over years during their term); and for (D) why not improve the process, forget about passing the bill, not reaping the rewards, and not wasting the judges' time on petty cruft?

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[BoberFett]

No shit, the word "British" is right there in the 2nd Amendment. Wait a sec...

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[Surt]

I love the people who want parents to be responsible rather than the government, and so suggest that the government license parenting. Brilliant!

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[drinkypoo]

You're seriously telling me that every single one of the millions of Americans who owns a gun is doing so "in case the British come back for us, so we can make a militia!"? Because that IS the only purpose of the 2nd amendment. The. Only. Purpose.

The idea is to protect yourself from oppressive governments. It doesn't have shit to do with England, save that they are one potential source of oppression (or were, anyway.)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Guess what? Right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state because it can help protect them from oppression by their own government. This is why it is crucial that we be allowed to possess assault weapons.

Gandhi himself said that among the misdeeds of the British, depriving an entire nation of weapons would be one of the blackest. Sure, he believed in nonviolent protest and demonstration. But he also didn't believe that an imbalance of power leads anywhere but wrong.

How will this be enforced ?

[edizzles]

^^ ya thats what i wuold liek to know, the clerks not gona turn him self in, are they gona do stings like with beer at gas stations? will some 25 year old looking 5th grader be trying to buy gta5 ?. The law breaks just about every part of the bill of rights and its just retarded in every respect.

Good ol' eugenics

[mindwar23]

...mandatory sterilization...

Eugenics was very popular from the 19th century up through the 1940's when the Nazi's used it to justify "mandatory euthanasia" of "undesireables": "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow Germans, that is your money, too." The United States had a very active compulsory sterilization program during this time. In fact, some of Hitler's own ideas may have been inspired by the American eugenics movement...

How's that for a slippery slope?

Re:Good ol' eugenics

[drinkypoo]

Eugenics was very popular from the 19th century up through the 1940's when the Nazi's used it to justify "mandatory euthanasia" of "undesireables":

What I am talking about is not Eugenics. You make a choice to either control your reproductive system, or not. If you want to get an abortion, you can keep your pipes. But if you can't control your reproductive system, then it should be taken away from you. The planet (well, our existence on the planet anyway) cannot sustain runaway growth.

I'm not proposing we sterilize people for any reason other than making bad decisions.

Re:Good ol' eugenics

[mindwar23]

It's still mandatory sterilization. The free will vs. genetic predetermination argument lends itself easily to this debate, since the purpose of the program is eugenic: i.e. make "bad" parents unable to spread their "disease" by continuing to reproduce. Or is that just a beneficial side-effect? If so, what is the real purpose?

It sounds like you're just dressing it up in new scientific and legal terms, by saying that a parent's track-record will determine a legal threshhold for sterilization. The track record of that kind of program speaks for itself: women, lower classes (as evidenced by your K-mart comments), and indigenous people are disproportionately targetted. Will they be targetted because they are just straight-up inferior genetically? Or perhaps you have some fool-proof legislation that will account for the spoiled kids of wealthy parents who just don't care to raise them "properly." But those wealthy parents can hire some pretty good lawyers...

Re:Good ol' eugenics

[drinkypoo]

It's still mandatory sterilization. The free will vs. genetic predetermination argument lends itself easily to this debate, since the purpose of the program is eugenic: i.e. make "bad" parents unable to spread their "disease" by continuing to reproduce. Or is that just a beneficial side-effect? If so, what is the real purpose?

The point is that eugenics is intentional selection on a genetic basis, and this is intentional selection on a behavioral basis. The use (or lack thereof) of birth control is predominantly learned behavior.

The track record of that kind of program speaks for itself: women, lower classes (as evidenced by your K-mart comments), and indigenous people are disproportionately targetted.

So long as the system penalizes people not for being poor but for breeding in an uncontrolled fashion, it is working as designed.

By the way, I would favor sterilizing both the male and female parents. On one hand, this will still unfairly target women, because sometimes the man will not be locatable, or his identity will be in question. But part of the premise of my proposal is that paternity testing will get cheaper over time - and it will get cheaper even faster if we need to do a lot of it. Ultimately, not knowing who your sexual partners are is irresponsible behavior from a parenting standpoint - unless you've rendered yourself either temporarily or permanently sterile, or it's been done for you.

Or perhaps you have some fool-proof legislation that will account for the spoiled kids of wealthy parents who just don't care to raise them "properly." But those wealthy parents can hire some pretty good lawyers...

Yeah well, no plan is perfect... but those wealthy parents can also afford to pay for the upbringing of the child, and at least eliminate the up-front cost to society, which is a step in the right direction.

Again, the premise here is that if you can't maintain control over your reproductive functions, it's reasonable for someone else to step up and do it for you. If you can't retain control over your fists on enough occasions, we will throw you in prison to be beaten and raped. I think that being unable to control your genitals (and what lies behind or below them, depending on gender) is most reasonably answered by a much less severe punishment which will be much more effective than the way we handle violent crime - but both violent crime and having children you can't or won't raise properly are horrible burdens on society and in the end, the entire world.

Re:Good ol' eugenics

[mindwar23]

Wikipedia's eugenics article defines eugenics as, "a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention." The purpose of your program is different, though: you aim to improve human behavior as opposed to the gene pool. Under this model, uncontrolled reproduction is a crime and the punishment is to have criminals' breeding privileges revoked for the good of society. If your real aim is to alter behavior and not the genetic landscape of the race, then why not use conventional punishments for "uncontrolled breeding?" Not to mention creating more positive reinforcments for "good" breeding? In the United States we consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment to cut off the hand of a thief. How is this different? And I think I've heard it before about how "humane" sterilization is...

In China, couples are limited to one child and that's it. I'm not sure I'd like to live under such a regime; there are reports of them performing sterilizations and forced abortions on those who break the rules... sounds rather par for the course in totalitarian society. The real bottom line for me is that forced sterilization is a critical component of any eugenic program--and much more palatable than "euthanasia." Good luck putting the genie back in the bottle if things get out of hand.

Re:Good ol' eugenics

[drinkypoo]

Under this model, uncontrolled reproduction is a crime and the punishment is to have criminals' breeding privileges revoked for the good of society. If your real aim is to alter behavior and not the genetic landscape of the race, then why not use conventional punishments for "uncontrolled breeding?"

What do you mean by "conventional punishments"? If you mean incarceration, it won't work; the "corrections" system actually engenders further criminal activity, not least the assault, rape, theft, bribery, et cetera within the prison walls. If you mean probation and fines, well, the threat of probation is being locked up, which doesn't work. And unless the fines cover the cost to society and the environment, then they are useless as well. Besides, what are you going to do? Lock people up for not paying them? See point #1.

Not to mention creating more positive reinforcments for "good" breeding?

It's important to recognize that revoking their breeding privileges (through sterilization, in this case) is not strictly a punishment, although it is easy to perceive it in that way. Locking someone up in prison to be the victim of repeated assault, THAT is a punishment. This is a correction of a condition. It WILL solve the problem of irresponsible serial reproduction, unlike locking people up (unless you lock them up for eternity, but I am not proposing that.)

But with that said, "good" breeding is its own reward. What do you want, a fucking medal for not fucking up your child's life? That's the responsibility that comes with reproducing.

In the United States we consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment to cut off the hand of a thief. How is this different?

Cutting off the hand of the thief does not stop someone from stealing, it only makes it much more difficult. You can still steal an apple with no hands. Sterilizing someone WILL stop them from reproducing. In addition, cutting off a hand is an impairment in nearly all activities, but sterilization only hampers reproduction.

As for the humanity of the proposal, I think it's far more humane than what happens to unwanted children.

In China, couples are limited to one child and that's it. I'm not sure I'd like to live under such a regime; there are reports of them performing sterilizations and forced abortions on those who break the rules... sounds rather par for the course in totalitarian society.

China is also one of the most chauvinistic, misogynistic cultures on the planet. What I think is more telling than the regime forcing sterilizations and/or abortions (I would not force abortions; abortion is the alternative to sterilization, however - you get a choice) on people is that many women in China have chosen (or been forced by their husbands) to get an abortion once they know a fetus is female. And of course, there are all the persons and couples who have abandoned their female infants to die of exposure (or consumption by wild animals) because they want a baby with a penis.

But have you considered the alternative to controlling reproduction in China? That alternative is overpopulation, starvation, disease, plague... Given the alternatives, forced sterilization and even forced abortion are positively humane. I would that the world worked in black and white, but not only do we have shades of gray, but full color as well.

The real bottom line for me is that forced sterilization is a critical component of any eugenic program--and much more palatable than "euthanasia." Good luck putting the genie back in the bottle if things get out of hand.

The Earth's population is up around six and a half billion. I think things are already "out of hand".

Re:Good ol' eugenics

[mindwar23]

I believe that what your proposal boils down to is a bunch of elites deciding who gets to reproduce. They would decide what the measures of "good" and "bad" breeding will be--most likely in a way that reinforces their own privilege. I am especially suspicious of the police-state apparatus that would be needed to spy on families in such a system--child protective services is scary enough without giving them the authority over the genes of the human race. And I believe that--despite your intentions--such a program would become about genetic "purity" as opposed to birth control rather quickly--and again it will serve to reinforce privilege.

Anyway, before such drastic action is even considered, we should put more dollars into social programs that teach about birth control systems as opposed to placing such an emphasis on abstinence.

Re:Good ol' eugenics

[drinkypoo]

I believe that what your proposal boils down to is a bunch of elites deciding who gets to reproduce.

You cannot make that determination until we discuss, as we have not yet done, what is necessary to get a license to reproduce, and who will be handing out the licenses.

Your belief is, so far, unfounded.

I am especially suspicious of the police-state apparatus that would be needed to spy on families in such a system--child protective services is scary enough without giving them the authority over the genes of the human race.

No substantial new law enforcement apparatus would be necessary. If you have your child and the system doesn't notice because you took care of them yourself, then there's not really a problem! Lots of things work this way today. For example hallucinogenic drugs. Okay, so they're illegal. I think they probably should be, because lots of people really DON'T have a strong enough handle on reality for them, and so they should be hard to get. But if you are smart, then you will be able to get and use the drugs without getting into trouble.

Yes, this can lead to selective enforcement. Or you could just go get the damned license.

And I believe that--despite your intentions--such a program would become about genetic "purity" as opposed to birth control rather quickly--and again it will serve to reinforce privilege.

It's not impossible. But again, what is the alternative? Mass dieoffs? A war? In general, you are not going to stop people from fucking...

Anyway, before such drastic action is even considered, we should put more dollars into social programs that teach about birth control systems as opposed to placing such an emphasis on abstinence.

By all means, we should do that. But if it is not sufficient, we're going to go right back to looking for other, more drastic solutions, by which time it will be too late to implement them nicely.

Other provisions not in TFA

[Serzen]

I read about this yesterday on another site (since, of course, local NY news doesn't carry anything about what goes on in Albany), and one of the provisions that the Assembly version of the bill provides is that all game consoles come with built in parental controls that are guarded by a password or PIN and can be set to exclude content based on ratings. No parental controls? Can't sell it in NY. Companies will have 120 days from the passage of the bill into law to comply.

Are there any current consoles on the market that don't have parental controls? And since PCs aren't dedicated gaming machines, I don't think they are included in the parental control mandate, although you still have the whole sale to a minor issue.

Of course, NY is, as others have pointed out, screwed up to begin with. Rockefeller, voting known criminals into office, the various Authorities (basically corporations funded by the public, but not subject to public scrutiny). Now if you sell a game to a minor, you go to state prison, lose a huge number of rights, and are more or less fucked at ever trying to get another job (if you make it OUT of prison, that is). $40 billion dollars a day buys us this?

Re:Other provisions not in TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone else pointed this out, so I'm posting AC to not take credit, but the Nintendo DS doesn't- as well as any old consoles sold by places like Gamerz/GameStop, etc.

Re:Other provisions not in TFA

[laffer1]

Instead of complying, all game companies should stop shipping consoles to New York. Nintendo should move their store. Perhaps no video games will hit the news and get those lawmakers some negative attention. Maybe parents care about little billy, but when they find they can't get games for their Wii in the state...

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[Richard Steiner]

Obviously not. Most of the folks I know who own firearms fall into the following categories:

(1) They use a gun to hunt. That's why my Dad and brother each have a 30-06 rifle, for example.

(2) They have a gun in the home for self-protection. Many of the folks I know personally who fall into this category are ex-military.

(3) They live in a rural area and have one or more guns simply because they can. :-)

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[Buran]

Um... in a word: no.

The Second Amendment is there so that future threats to our liberties can be fought by citizens, whether individually or organized into militias, without the need for a federal army. We do have such an army, but what if that army were turned against the interests of the citizens? Remember that in the late 1700s, the colonies were in theory protected by the British army but that army was acting against the desires of the people -- and so the revolution began when citizens took up arms to defend their freedoms.

If the only purpose were to protect against the British, the Constitution would say so. However, it was written open-endedly so that it would still be relevant to future, unknown threats. And so it is.

Sure, there are other reasons to have a right to bear arms, but those who don't like that fact have a huge uphill fight to repeal the Second Amendment, and for good reason -- rights that are held that highly SHOULD be hard to repeal.

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[mOdQuArK!]

Not sure if you're being facetious or just stupid. The 2nd amendment isn't about a society defending itself against foreign powers. It's about a society defending itself against its OWN government - and, hopefully, is one of those "rights" that will never need to be applied.

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[Chabo]

Not just because of invasion. One of the main purposes of a militia is to keep the government in check. That whole "Enemies, foreign and domestic" thing.

As a free society, a side benefit of having arms is using them for other purposes, including self defense, sustenance (hunting, and I think hunting without taking the meat is extremely wasteful), and any other purpose that does not infringe on the rights of other law-abiding citizens.

Flood this guys emial with complaints

[edizzles]

This is a link to the NY majority leaders contact page for any one who want get oldschool on him. http://www.senatorbruno.com/send_email.asp

Politicians = Gerbils = The Electorate

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the Electorate supports the feeling of security or doing "something" over The Constition that politicans are sworn to protect.

These laws make for good bullet points even when the politician knows it wont pass constitutional muster.

The electorate never seems to punish politicians who behave in this manner.

Expect to see more and more of this behaviour from the right and the left until the people wise up which they will probably never do.

I'm not singling you out

[BlackCobra43]

Because all of the replies so far have amounted to the same, silly reply : It`s about protecting ourselves from ourselves.

Guess what? No matter how many weapons you possess, the Army has all the nukes. You don't stand a chance. The right obear arms has become utterly irrelevant in the modern age. Stop lying to yourselves and embrace the truth that every other civilized nation already has : You don`t need guns. Period.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[CrashPoint]

Guess what? No matter how many weapons you possess, the Army has all the nukes. You don't stand a chance.

Right, because that's the only factor. It's not like war is complex or anything.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[Kadin2048]

Yeah, because it's obvious that a few people with small arms and improvised explosives can't stymie a world superpower.

Oh, wait.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[Rycross]

Not much to govern if you nuke everyone to death. Yeah, the government has superior firepower. But that assumes that 1) your troops don't defect and take the toys with them 2) your troops have no problems blowing away friends, family, and fellow citizens 3) you can use those toys without causing serious permanent damage to that which you are trying to seize, 4) the use of those toys doesn't piss off foreign powers, and 5) the use of those toys doesn't cause more righteous indignation, allowing the defense to drum up support, perhaps from #1.

Case study: Iraq. The insurgents take pot shots at our troops and then blend into the crowd. We either go in with guns blazing, and take out civilians, thus earning the insurgents new recruits and indignation of our allies, or stumble around ineffectively and let the insurgents take more pot shots at us.

I think history has proven that you can only subjugate an armed nation by engaging in total war. Crush their people, their infrastructure, and their spirit. Show them that you're able and willing to grind them into dust if they continue to resist. We haven't had that kind of a war since World War 2. Since then we've lost and stalemated against opponents far less trained and equipped than our own, because it wasn't acceptable to firebomb cities into oblivion.

And since lately people have enjoyed twisting my words, I don't support or approve of these sorts of tactics.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[Bent Mind]

No matter how many weapons you possess, the Army has all the nukes. Right, like the Government is ever going to nuke themselves. If it ever comes to that, then the Government will lose all legitimacy and the United States will cease to exist. At that point it won't matter what the constitution says.

Stop lying to yourselves and embrace the truth that every other civilized nation already has : You don`t need guns. Period. The way I see it, there are three groups of people where guns are concerned: Government, criminals, and law-abiding citizens. I might consider replacing my gun with a bow for hunting, though I doubt many duck hunters would. However, I will not give up the gun I keep for self-defense until the other two groups do the same.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[drinkypoo]

Guess what? No matter how many weapons you possess, the Army has all the nukes.

So what you're proposing is that the Army is going to nuke American soil to take out riflemen?

The right obear arms has become utterly irrelevant in the modern age.

You are, quite frankly, deluded. There are two reasons why this is true; one, guerilla warfare is highly effective, especially in cases in which you know the terrain better than the invaders. two, you cannot prevent a highly motivated and trained (and there are lots of highly-trained gunmen out there, including many many ex-military types, who value freedom) gunman willing to sacrifice his own life for that of the target. Oh sure, sometimes you can, but you can't guarantee that.

Stop lying to yourselves and embrace the truth that every other civilized nation already has : You don`t need guns. Period.

You know, just a few moments of consideration would lead to the conclusion that in those so-called civilized nations, they have given up their guns, and now they have no option but to pretend that giving them up was a good idea - because they don't have the guns.

I note that most of us around the world are subjects of repressive governments. Over there in England they've got a camera on every corner and I have a feeling they're only working on the mounting technology before they stick them up everyone's arses, for example. We seem to have more rights than most here in the US. Can we attribute that to guns? I don't know. Neither does anyone else. But what we do know is that giving up your guns doesn't translate into increased freedoms.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[Archangel_Azazel]

--You know, just a few moments of consideration would lead to the conclusion that in those so-called civilized nations, they have given up their guns, and now they have no option but to pretend that giving them up was a good idea - because they don't have the guns.--

A-friggin'-men.

I used to be very anti-gun. Then I realized that with the way our government is going it might just be a good idea to keep a few around in case they decide they want my house, or my life because I don't agree with them.

Also, there is another way to effect change in the world, it's just *massively* more difficult to do. I don't remember who said it but... "What would happen if they declared a war and nobody showed up?"

If this IS a free country, then we still have the right to stand up and say "No, this will not happen on my watch. Period." Sadly, more of our citizenry are concerned with who won American Idiot..err..Idol and making sure their neighbor isn't doing anything they don't approve of. I have a feeling that when we finally get off our collective asses, things will change. Until then, we're just sheep...all of us. Including me.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point! That's why Iraq was such an easy victory and our soldiers are home right now!

Re:I'm not singling you out

[Grishnakh]

I think history has proven that you can only subjugate an armed nation by engaging in total war. Crush their people, their infrastructure, and their spirit. Show them that you're able and willing to grind them into dust if they continue to resist.

Yep, this is exactly what the Romans did against enemies like the Carthaginians. If you're not willing to kill every man, woman, and child, destroy their cities, and salt their fields, then you might as well give up trying to force your will on a people.

Personally, I don't approve of such tactics either, unless your country is really under direct threat (which the USA is not), so I'm against foreign wars.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[Grishnakh]

I might consider replacing my gun with a bow for hunting, though I doubt many duck hunters would.

I don't hunt, but if I did, I wouldn't. I think it's cruel to animals to use a bow. Are you sure enough of your skill that you'll drop a deer with a single arrow? You'd have to be an amazing shot to be that confident. If you don't drop the deer with one arrow, you've now made the deer suffer while it runs through the woods for miles, bleeding, and eventually bleeds to death. Now you have to track it to retrieve the body, and you might not ever find it. Guns are simply better tools for hunting. It's much easier to get a clean kill with a gun; then the animal doesn't suffer, and you don't have to walk miles through the woods looking for a wounded animal.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[Grishnakh]

Sadly, more of our citizenry are concerned with who won American Idiot..err..Idol and making sure their neighbor isn't doing anything they don't approve of. I have a feeling that when we finally get off our collective asses, things will change. Until then, we're just sheep...all of us. Including me.

Don't consider yourself a sheep just because you haven't done anything yet. As long as you vote, that really good enough for now. What's important is being prepared, instead of just giving up. Taking action has huge risk and costs, and things may not be bad enough yet to take those risks. But if things ever do get that bad, as long as you're prepared, then you've done the best you can. If you're not prepared, then no matter how bad things get, there's nothing you can do about it.

Re:I'm not singling you out

[Grishnakh]

That's also why Vietnam was such as easy victory! And Afghanistan was such an easy victory for the Soviets!

Maybe there should be an IQ test for posting on Slashdot...

You know, I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we as a society accept that not letting kids into theaters to see R rated movies alone, allowing TV ratings with v-chip blocking, and other such things, be so up in arms about denying M-rated games to kids? Is there something I'm just not understanding here?

If there is some lack of freedom for the rest of us this is causing, then fine, but all I'm seeing is that they're asking retailers to *GASP* follow the guidelines of the rating system just like they do for movies and not let kids get M-rated games on their own.

So what's the deal? What, exactly, is wrong with this?

Given the entire videogame industry seems to disagree, I'll post anonymously to save my karma.

Re:You know, I don't get it.

[praxis]

Asking retailers to follow a rating system is just fine, and intrudes on no adult freedoms. I think the problem with this particular bill are two fold:

1) It's makes it a felony, which is a bit harsh for what it's trying to do. As far as I know, selling cigarettes to minors is not a felony, for example.

2) It doesn't proscribe any metric by which permitted and verbotten games are determined. To return to the cigarette analogy, every retailer that sells cigarettes knows what a tobacco product looks like. Not every video game store clerk knows what a "voilent" video game box looks like.

Sure he can use the ESRB rating to make a judgement, but then he's usuing a different metric than the law, and possibly facing a felony charge while the girl accross the mall selling the pack of smokes knows exactly what she's doing and facing a lesser charge.

At least, that's my truck with it. (I didn't do my fact checking on the cigarette sales laws, so I could be wrong and they could be felony charges too, but I find that unlikely)

Re:You know, I don't get it.

[theJmtz]

I'm all for not giving kids M rated games, thats why the ratings even exist. What you're missing is that there are no laws anywhere, that I'm aware of, that make it a crime (even a misdemeanor, let alone a felony) to let a kid into an R rated movie, or sell them that movie. The same goes for music, TV, and books, which don't even have ratings yet can be just as violent as any other media. I believe it should be store policy to not sell M rated games to kids, but if one employee slips, they shouldn't be marked for life.

Fuck the Children

[Maltheus]

I got nothing against children themselves, but I am so sick and tired of politicians hiding behind, "but it's for the children," bullshit. The didn't seem to be nearly as many problems with children before we had millions of laws "for the children."

Re:Fuck the Children

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminded me of an interesting quote:

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
--Adolf Hitler

1 CLICK to fight this - Send NY Assembly a note

[Banekartr]

The Washington DC based "Video Game Voters" organization, is fighting this. If everyone takes 2 seconds and 1 click , we can send MASSIVE amounts of a pre-formated letters to the NY Assemblymember. http://www.videogamevoters.org/statelevel/nyassemb lyem/

Re:1 CLICK to fight this - Send NY Assembly a note

[Zibblsnrt]

Right, because if there's anything a legislator will give a damn about, it's a form letter written and delivered via a web page any random person outside of New York can access.

But it'll make people feel like they've participated in the political process, and that's what matters most, right?

Alternatives for Kids' Free Time

[Phoenix666]

Thinking of the children...I live in New York and I'd far prefer kids and teens spending their free time indoors playing a violent video game like GTA than hanging out outside spraying graffiti, destroying property, or any of the much worse things they get into when they are bored and have time on their hands.

Sure, there are some kids who'll go pick up a DIY radio kit, code, or play basketball in their free time. But judging from the kids on my block in Brooklyn there are plenty who are not adept enough or self-motivated enough to do those things, but quite capable of doing harm if not directed or distracted.

Re:Alternatives for Kids' Free Time

[vidnet]

Beating virtual hookers > beating non-virtual hookers. Mod parent up!

Re:Why the fuck should I care about stupid politic

[Anonymous Coward]

I can use daddy's gun, and play daddy's game.
I can't by a gun, I can't buy a game.
Why the fuck should I care about stupid politics?

Here let me fix that for you:


I can eat apples gum, and oat bran muffins flame.
I can't chew a gum, I can't oat bran flame.
Why the grapefruit should I blender about strawberries?

There, aren't you glad I fixed that for you?

No need to thank me! Have a nice day! :-)

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[Broken scope]

I could be wrong but aren't most of the procedures... irreversible? What gives the government the right to do that?

Yes, let's compare

[Anonymous Coward]

Compare the crime rate of Canada to that of Canadian-Americans.

Parental Controls Mandatory = Stupid

[SydShamino]

I've got no issue with a law requiring that consoles have parental controls so that parents can decide what rating level is appropriate for their kids and lock out the rest.

What the hell is a "console"? Right from Sony's website, the PlayStation 3 is a "computer entertainment system". Is a Commodore 64 a "console" or a computer? What about a Dell?

So it is now illegal to sell any computing device without parental controls? What if those parental controls can be easily circumvented? Does the device have to include anti-circumvention features such as hardware-based "Trusted computing"? How else would you keep someone from booting their PS3 into Linux and using that to play the latest version of "Naked Tux Racer"?

Sure, the legislation could attempt to define "console". But, I guarantee, if that definition isn't already stupid (such not handling Commodore 64), it will be stupid within a generation or two of computing hardware.

I don't see anyone whining about the V-chip

Just wait until the think-of-the-children types realize software-based televisions, running on computers, perhaps with an IPTV connection, can have their V-chip software disabled or removed. You just don't see it because it hasn't started yet.

Re:Parental Controls Mandatory = Stupid

[PFI_Optix]

Read more of the thread, I laid out a decent (but probably incomplete) definition of the systems that this would apply to.

"How else would you keep someone from booting their PS3 into Linux"

Good point. By allowing parents the ability to prevent unrated disks from being run, perhaps.

Yaye Insane!

[Anonymous Coward]

In NY a first time DUI conviction is normally a misdemeanor. How exactly is renting a copy of Halo to a 14 year old worse than DUI?

Re:Yaye Insane!

[SoulRider]

Because so many more politicians drive under the influence than play halo? You wouldnt want them to pass a law that actually affected them would you?

Re:Yaye Insane!

[sizzzzlerz]

Because the legislators don't receive as much mon.., errr, campaign contributions from the game lobbyists as they do from the booze industry.

Re:Yaye Insane!

[lgw]

I'm pretty sure the net flow of money from the Kennedys to the booze industry is outward, but you're probably right in general.

Moderators...

[Rycross]

Note to moderators: Flamebait != "I don't agree with what you say."

Re:Moderators...

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but there's no "-1, fucking stupid" mod.

Am I the only one...

[MaXimillion]

Who read "Indecent Game Sales Now A Felony" and thought they were going to completely ban sex games from being sold?

Monetary consideration?

[revengebomber]

A PERSON IS GUILTY OF DISSEMINATING VIOLENT AND INDECENT VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS WHEN, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENT, HE OR SHE SELLS OR LOANS TO A MINOR FOR [b]MONETARY CONSIDERATION[/b] ANY VIDEO GAME WHICH INCLUDES DEPRAVED VIOLENCE AND INDECENT IMAGES THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO A USER. So, in other words, the kids just go to the Pirate Bay instead of the game store. Great Job!

Also, I noticed the "hot coffee" exclusion. At least it does that.

Re:Monetary consideration?

[revengebomber]

In addition, I seem to have overlooked this very sound piece of legal wording:

SUCH TERMS SHALL NOT INCLUDE A PERSONAL COMPUTER, It doesn't define what "personal computer" means. The NES was a computer. You could program it. It would do math for you. How is it different from, say, a Commodore 64 (if I remember, don't they both run on a 6502?) or any other computer? There's no definition included, so logically, anything that an individual could reasonably afford that is capable of computation (sorry pong) is excluded. This is especially true for PS2, XBox, etc, that you can run Linux on.

Sponsored by Andrew Lanza

[grape jelly]

The Senate version of the bill (A8696), was sponsored by Andrew Lanza, Republican from New York's 24th District.

Wikipedia entry on Andrew Lanza

Pedant alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the parent (admittedly he was quoting), and I've converted the case using Word Perfect:

Last I heard its [sic] not the governments [sic] job, its [sic] the parent [sic]. You should be required to have a license to have children. Otherwise the parents loose [sic] a finger everytime [sic]

So, we should untie their fingers every time? If they were to LOSE their fingers for bad parenting, Autolycus' parents would have no fingers. Perhaps it's the illiterate teachers who are doing such a horrible job of teaching our young to read and write who should "loose" their fingers?

And if you're one of the semiliterates who don't know why those errors I've flagged are errors, here is the same thing corrected.

Last I heard it's not the government's job, its the parents'. You should be required to have a license to have children. Otherwise the parents lose a finger every time.

See Bob's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots. For the spelling of the words "lose" and "loose" you might try a dictionary. The verb "Loose" means to set free, while the verb "lose" means to "to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery:" Example: "If you loose that dangerous animal I'll lose my mind".

Meanwhile, if we had eugenics, mindwar23 and his "nazi's" would have suffered a Godwin-like euthenasia.

In a site with a masthead that says "news for nerds" why are there so many people who apparently suffer mental retardation? You illiterate dumbasses and your calls for stupid people to "loose" fingers and for having eugenics like the "nazi's" did would be the first against the wall when the revolution came.

-mcgrew

PS: My oldest daughter's umbilical cord was around her neck during birth, causing her to be mentally handicapped. Her IQ is measured at 65. Meanwhile, mine is 142 and my younger daughter's is 132. Those of you calling for eugenics would lose the genetic material that might result in another Einstein. Most handicaps, both mental and physical, are the result of environment, not genetics.

So all of you assholes calling for the retarded to die can GO FUCK YOURSELVES.

Re:Pedant alert!

[mindwar23]

You illiterate dumbasses and your calls for stupid people to "loose" fingers and for having eugenics like the "nazi's" did would be the first against the wall when the revolution came.

I apologize for the typo, thanks for pointing it out. And for the record, I never called for eugenic practices, nor anyone's death--though it seems you did call for mine. My purpose was to draw an appropriate correlation between the practices indicated by the parent and Nazi programs in order to show the danger inherent in such practices.

It's not a law. Yet.

[gorbachev]

The bill passed the NYS Assembly vote. It hasn't been enacted as a law yet.

The minute it will be enacted, the various entertainment and retail industry groups are going to sue New York State, and after a costly legal battle it will be ruled unconstitutional. One can only hope the various out of touch insane jackasses in Albany will be forced to pay the legal bills from their personal funds. That won't happen, of course, and the bill will be paid by NYS tax payers.

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[vux984]

But he also didn't believe that an imbalance of power leads anywhere but wrong.

I guess the US ban on private citizens owning nuclear submarines would be an imbalance of power?

Or perhaps the idea of preventing Iraq from possessing WMDs (like the US already DOES) would be an imbalance of power?

Sorry, the US is JUST as out of touch with reality as Britain is.

A felony!?

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Thats a little over kill. I dont know if I can respect New York politicians and the people who support this.

For Sale!

[Anonymous Coward]

Game consoles and games! (Sorry, NO shipping to New York addresses... don't bid if you are in NY)

Do they even make decent games anymore?

[Maltheus]

I'm still stuck on UT2K4 cause I have seen many decent games since.

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[drinkypoo]

Or perhaps the idea of preventing Iraq from possessing WMDs (like the US already DOES) would be an imbalance of power?

To be fair, Saddam was genocidal and should have been prevented from having WMDs. On the other hand, we have a religious fundamentalist at the helm. Fear. And of course, we basically created Saddam.

You're right though that our record with WMDs is not good. Only people to ever nuke cities full of people, and we nuked various other people in the name of science.

This is however no excuse to create additional imbalance and make the problem worse.

Unwillingness?

[phorm]

Don't be encouraged by the success of the Iraqis. They are only doing as well as they are because of U.S. unwillingness to be seen using excessive force - not a likelihood in the case of internal rebellion.

Actually, I'm guessing it has a lot to with the fact that the "insurgents" are at least smart enough to avoid a scale-of-arms confrontation with the Americans, that and many of them have a die-for-the-cause attitude. Rather than running up and getting machine-gunned, they focus on planting bombs and other such methods. In addition to causing casualties or deaths, this inflicts fear and uncertainty. A soldier can face an enemy soldier, but a machine-gun does little against a hidden roadside bomb or mine. The Americans aren't going to be beat by force-of-arms, but the longer they stay the more the demoralization works again them, and thus this is the tactic that is used. Unfortunately for those in Iraq, they're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

This is not your grandfathers war with "glorious" charges and battle at sea, land and air. It's about holding onto a hostile territory against an enemy that doesn't play by your "rules," facing the fear of being blown bits by roadside bombs or some nutcase with a detonator and tnt strapped to his back.

So who gets nailed by this?

[phorm]

The store owner, the store, or the minimum-wage employee who sells an M game to a kid who is 17 years 11 months old, and looks like he's 21.

Yeah... that's what I thought.

Re:So who gets nailed by this?

[Zibblsnrt]

It gets even more entertaining if the minimum-wage employee is himself, say, sixteen and on his first or second job.

Re:So who gets nailed by this?

[phorm]

Interesting. I wonder if the law would preclude minors from working in game stores (although I suppose they can work in places that sell cigarettes).

What happens if the kid buys an M game from the store. He is both the buyer and the seller... so probably liable?

Re:So who gets nailed by this?

[demi]

I don't know how it works in New York, but in California, when I was a teenager with a summer job in a restaurant, in theory I was not supposed to serve alcohol.

selling cigarettes to minors is not a felony .

[cottonslurpy]

So violations of State tobacco law may result in fines of up to $4,000, plus a $50 surcharge for each violation. Violations can lead to the loss of the business's State retail sales registration and Lottery license. What's more dangerous to a "minor"? Cigarettes or a video game? So although this will sound completely ridiculous and un-necessary to a normal human being; if you're going to regulate the gaming industry, then regulate it with a state license(or strip the existing retailers license) to sell video games, and game content. Then start fining them, with the possibility to have their license removed or revoked, which ultimately puts them out of business if it continues. Doesn't that seem more reasonable? Does attaching "felony" with "video game" seem reasonable? Pretty soon it's going to be a felony to sell potato chips to kids, because the food contains fat, and the minor is smart enough to realize that fat will make him fat.

Thanks, I am very glad you fixed that for me.

[OldHawk777]

Now, could you provide some similar assistance to politicians, it would help improve US.

Whoops, AC sorry, I goofed and did in fact thank you.

Canada is Inferior

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. Britain is an excellent country, superior to Canada in every way. It is devilish and dastardly to suggest that there is anything wrong with its government.

Not that there's anything wrong with totalitarian dictatorships.

~voice_of_fate

Re:politicians. BUMP mods on crack, not flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

> Fucking A right, it would.
> If folks were allowed concealed carry on airplanes, you reckon any of those planes would have hit anything?

Um, yes. Because the hijackers would ALSO have carried concealed weapons.

They would have proceeded to kill the crew, kill the first passenger who tried to fight back, and systematically disarmed the rest, THEN crashed into the buildings.

I'll never understand how gun nuts think guns on planes could have prevented 9/11.

It's classic behavior

[SupremoMan]

Polititians are just trying to look like they are doing something.... about something... to justify their existance and pay. Of course the truth is they hardly do a thing, especially at State assembly level. Overall the impact of this will be limited. I doubt the prisons will become crowded with GameStop clerks, unlike the excessive drug laws that do not do their job, just fill up all the prisons in New York.

Atari 2600 and NES now illegal?

[HunterZ]

The bill makes it illegal to sell a console without parental control options and establishes a group to second guess the ESRB's rating decisions.

Does that mean it would be illegal for me to sell my Atari 2600 and/or NES in New York?

Re:Atari 2600 and NES now illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, as far as I know, this also bans the sales of the consoles up to XBox and PS2, as I'm not entirely sure those have parental control settings.

And GBA? Forget it.

This bill may have single handedly killed videogame retail in NY. Everyone's going to be so concerned about whether or not they can pass this, that they won't sell any games to anyone who isn't a minor.

Why? Because the ruling is so vague, even Pokemon (hey those little monsters fight eachother) could be included.

Tetris on the rise

[RockRampantly]

In other news, Tetris has been selling through the roof.

At 6 years I was buying cigs and booze for the dad

[roman_mir]

When I was 6 years old I remember been sent to stores to buy food, booze and cigarettes for my father. This was not a big deal at all in the former USSR in the early eighties. This is still not a big deal in the former USSR even now.

Why are people below the age of 12 treated in this country as if they are total morons, who can't figure out the change, can't buy a bottle of vodka without drinking it right at the counter, buying a pack of cigarettes without smoking all of them right there and then having to ask the store-clerk if she is available tonight for a fuck?

But you know what, I didn't drink the booze, didn't smoke the cigarettes, I didn't spend the change, I brought that stuff home and left it on the table because I knew I was trusted with something and I knew not to fuck up such a thing. Also I had enough common sense not to do this to my parents, who I was pretty certain would not be happy about it.

Today kids don't get proper education from their parents, they don't respect anyone and that's basically the root of all evil.

The tag says it all...

[Posting=!Working]

The tag accurately summarizes the legislator's actions:

"court, politics, game"

It is legal for women to go topless in NY though!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

It is legal in NY for women to walk around topless if they wish in public. They past that law somewhere in the 90s here in NY. So it is perfectly legal for a young teen to see tits in public, but not digitaly in videogame? It is also still legal to go to a New York Yankee's game and hear the fat beer drinking bastard behind you scream out "Hey Jeter.. GO FUCK YOUR MOTHER YOU HALF NIGGER"

Thats still legal in ny.

But buying a game with simulated FAKE violence, where no one dies, no one cries, and its all just an imaginary thing in your head.... that is illegal.

BTW it is still legal for the NYPD to shove plungers up your ass. So dont sell that copy of GTA to that 15 year old. God forbid they beable to buy something, they were able to buy the last 30 years.

Games are the problem! They ruin EVERYTHING!. Thank Hillary for this one. She is on a crusade against games. Dont vote for the cunt. I'm in NY and she hasnt done a dam thing for the city. Vote for Obama instead... of if you have some real balls, vote independent. Stop putting these tools into office.

I hope they soon figure out a violent and indecent videogame is, that way we can outlaw all other kinds of indecent material... starting with speech like Nappy headed hos. We really need to rid this country of free speech. We cant grasp the concept of freedom in this country.

America fucking sucks. YOU listening world. Even we hate this fucking country. Its a god dam prison and the wardens are full of bullshit.

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's nice if on a crowded highway the other drivers are responsible. Wouldn't it be nice if the government licensed drivers? And took AWAY their licenses when they displayed blatant irresponsibility?

Hmm?

AC

That wil open a can of worms....

[SubliminalVortex]

Look, Pac-Man has been running around naked eating up ghosts, Bilestoad for the Apple II was one gory hack-and-slash if I ever knew one. "Space Invaders" was an insult to humanity because it taught us to kill everything coming at us, friendly or not, with no reward other than 'points'. What exactly is considered an "indecent" game? In the case of MMORPG's, it's those denizens that make up the game. In the case of FPS games, it's also those who make up the game. Give me my Leather Goddesses of Phobos any day. :)

This law should apply to books

[chicago_scott]

This law should apply to books such as George Orwell's 1984 as well.

The passages in which government-employed thugs torture citizen Winston Smith are unnecessarily violent and disturbing.

If people stop writing about violence and oppression then violence and oppression will surely disappear.

Soon to be heard on the Group W Bench

[russotto]

"Whatcha in for, kid"

"Selling _Duck Hunt_ to a 17 year old".

And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said,

"AND a classic Nintendo to play it on"

And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.

Countdown to extintion

[DiEx-15]

This is just yet another waste of time and money. It will be appealed because of the First Admendment and will be yet another bill that is put to waste. Here is a novel idea - why don't the GOVERNMENT stay out of what PARENTS should be doing? Oh I forgot, common sense is as extinct as the dinosaurs....

_____

"You know, if I actually CARED then this would all make sense!"

BlackCobra43's recipe for "success"

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Make idiotic claim that the Second Amendment exists for some absurd reason you made up on the spot.
2. When called out on incompetent lie, backtrack to marginally less moronic "nuke > gun, therefore gun == useless" sawhorse.
3. Weep bitterly at own cowardice and intellectual dishonesty while attempting to cover up by stating ill-considered opinion as fact.

Obligatory complaint

[Captain Sarcastic]

I don't understand what you just wrote. Could you re-post that as an automotive analogy?

GPL to the rescue!

[Alsee]

This law only applies to "selling or renting" games.

Are there any excessively violent/indecent GPL games around that we can massively hand out for free?

If not, there should be.

-

What is the crime to rent porno to a minor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a felony?

Clarification

[Jason Tocci]

Just to offer a quick correction (and sorry if someone covered this in the comments and I missed it), but the law hasn't actually passed yet. The state senate and state assembly each voted on separate bills, and only the assembly's classifies the crime as a felony. (That's the one the governor is rooting for.) They'll need to figure out how to compromise on this before the legislative session ends in June.

I have written a bit about this, so if you are interested, please feel free to see this link for a general summary of why bills of this kind keep getting overturned, this link for a brief note on the wording of this bill in particular. Game Politics has the most in-depth ongoing coverage of related developments, though.

Better buy the real thing!!

[Rsriram]

This is law supported by NRA that does not want kids to believe they can make do with simulated guns. They want to introduce a new law that makes it easy for schoolkids to own guns. Especially as defense against other schoolkids who carry guns to school.

Re:At 6 years I was buying cigs and booze for the

[alan4561]

It is here that I agree: Children today are not taught respect. We see this in the choices they make. Now New York wishes to criminalize the sale of Indecent games (excessive violence, gratuitous sexual content, etc.). They want to punish the seller of these games. They want to punish the seller, with a FELONY, for something that the state assembly should be arresting the PARENTS for.

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[asninn]

Right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state because it can help protect them from oppression by their own government.

So what you're saying is that the USA are, basically, the only free country in the world (not counting others that might have similarly lax gun laws) and that most of - e.g. - Europe is actually not free?

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[lessthan]

Yes.

Subliminal Distraction causes violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Passing laws to limit the sale of violent video games will not stop that violence. The problem is the location where the game is played. When you do anything requiring concentration to a level of slight dissociation while there is repeating detectable movement in peripheral vision, you risk exposure from Subliminal Distraction.

For forty years designers have used Cubicles to prevent small mental breaks for knowledge workers in crowded offices. When a home computer is in the family room or near a door to other parts of the home family members walking beside the computer user create the same design problem that caused the 1960's office problem.

Using a hand held game machine allows use in locations that create the same design problem.

This problem should be the warning on game CD's. In fact all soft ware and computers should have the same warning.

The Virginia Tech shooter was described with behaviors that would have caused exposure from Subliminal Distraction. He had increased the behavior in the month before the shooting.

What did he do? He sat in the common room studying while the other suite members walked around him. He used a laptop there. It does not matter what you do with the computer; reading the screen for comprehension creates the slight dissociation necessary to engage your peripheral vision warning system. (See my site for a full explanation.)

If you are a college student send your school news paper to this site. (See the College Suicides and Missing Student pages on my site.)

L K Tucker
http://visionandpsychosis.net/

Re:Mindset Schmindset

[Grishnakh]

Well, it was only about 65 years ago that much of Europe was under the control of Hitler (who also pushed anti-firearms laws), resulting in a war killing tens of millions of people, so yes, I'd say that Europe isn't really free. It wouldn't take much for a dictator to rise up again in that environment.

Europeans seem to have rather short memories.

A more modest proposal

[goldfndr]

The number of laws/bills that a legislator voted "yay" on and were found by a court to be unconstitutional shall be listed in each candidate's section of the Voter's Guide.

Re:At 6 years I was buying cigs and booze for the

[CrashPoint]

Arresting the parents? No, that's just as bad. A parent is perfectly capable of deciding whether his kid's ready to play GTA. The government has no business telling him otherwise.

Why the American approach is wrong....

[Anonymous Coward]

The real difference is that the Englishman used to be a gentleman, while the American never was.

People behave as you treat them. The Brits learned this while running their Empire. If you treat someone fairly, they will treat you fairly. So you don't need to square off and fight them. That's how a few Englishmen were able to run India.

The American approach is all about money, and making more of it. The way the Americans do this is to treat people unfairly - ask the original native inhabitants. Isn't it the case that America has broken every treaty it's ever signed?

If you operate in the American manner, you will soon come to blows. And that's when you need to be well armed. The British method is never to come to blows.

Re:Why the American approach is wrong....

[Anonymous Coward]

Your diatribe is so full of gross over-generalizations and half-truths, that whatever wisp of an argument you were trying to make has dissipated in the winds of innumerable counter-examples.

Re: A thoughtful comment...

[Surt]

I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment. Were you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
I assume you are claiming that because the government licenses drivers, and therefore people drive responsibly, that the people driving responsibly are the ones being responsible, not the government, and thus government intervention achieves the desired goal. But that's not the definition of responsibility. That's the government taking charge, not the people.
The behavior may be similar, but the motivation clearly isn't the same. And the problem in general with the authoritative point of view is that all the research says that people start misbehaving as soon as the authority is out of view (ex: how many people speed when they can't see a cop car vs how many speed when they can?)