Slashdot Mirror
A Right To Bear Virtual Arms?
theodp writes "In the world of virtual goods, reports GeekWire's Todd Bishop, it looks like there's no such thing as a Second Amendment. According to a forum post by an Epic Games community manager, a new policy will remove 'gun-like' items from Microsoft's Xbox Live Avatar Marketplace on January 1. The policy reportedly applies to accessories for the avatars that represent Xbox Live users, not to games themselves, and owners of virtual weaponry like the Gears of War 3 Avatar Lancer purchased before the policy goes into effect will be permitted to continue to wield them."
And people wonder why I hate the walled garden approach to gaming... You can blow people away, but you can't say fuck... Idiots.
The Second was meant to enable you to protect yourself and your property. What good is a virtual gun going to do you?
Bears have paws, not arms.
There are many real world places that won't allow you to enter with a gun. They are not in violation of the 2nd amendment, neither is this. Being a virtual environment has nothing to do with it.
The one that came after a wall of incomprehensible legalese? I'm sure you "agreed" to give up your virtual second amendment rights, among various other things.
What's the point of that decision? A kid seeing a virtual gun is going to bring about the apocalypse?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Don't be surprised when an international audience (like the internet) laughs at you for it.
What's all this I hear about arming bears? I mean, aren't they dangerous enough?
Oh, never mind.
Really, who cares?
That's a 'contract' between the U.S. Government and the American people.
It has no applicability – none, zero, nada, zilch, zip – to EA, Epic, iD, Bethesda, Valve, etc, and you.
It's not a law. It's not the government restricting what you can do in a virtual environment, and even if it were a law, that would be a First, not Second, Amendment issue. This is no different from a store having a policy of not selling guns. Or more precisely, of a flea market setting a policy that its vendors cannot sell guns (or candy or wooden nickels or whatever else they want). What would the alternative be? Should Microsoft be forced to sell guns on Xbox Live? That would be a clear First Amendment violation.
.sig withheld by request
If you want to bear virtual arms, you must have a virtual permit to bear arms...
Further more, it should be possible to distinguish fake virtual arms from real virtual arms, so you can see who (and what) you have in front of you.
But the best thing is I'm virtually bullet proof :)
Privacy is terrorism.
its a game. the only rights you have within the realms of a virtual environment are those provided by the terms of service.
I don't care how many hours you put in to perfecting your online avatar in your mothers basement, its still just a game.
I don't think it's really been a good day if someone hasn't seized my gun.
Better still firmly seized it several times.
I prefer to leave other guys guns be though. I ain't wired that way.
Personally, one of my dreams is to discriminate against a Libertarian in an economic transaction simply because of their political affiliation. In theory, they should be supportive of my position, since property rights are absolute. In practice, I think they would squeal like a stuck pig. I have a strong hunch that no Libertarian can conceive that they would be excluded from anything because of personal prejudice.
That's cool, go for it. I must say, however, that your personal dreams might need an upgrade soon...just sayin'.
I thought it would be about a constitutional right to keep and bear DDOS systems and pen test tools.
I learned from watching governments that might makes right, guns let you force your will on other people and that it's OK to kidnap, torture and even assassinate people that disagree with you when the invisible magic sky fairy tells you to.
That's what I learned from watching governments.
So when can we get avatars that are water-boarding people that claim the same rights for themselves as we claim for ourselves?
you fail at "property rights override all other rights" so the rest of your post is a retarded fantasy.
The only way you could do that would be by establishing a monopoly in something the libertarian needs. Otherwise, they'll just support your right to charge what you will, and buy whatever it is somewhere else.
But, then you'd have a monopoly, so of course libertarians would loudly complain. Your "dream" is tautology...
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
First, the US Constitution affirms the rights of individuals against government interference.
Secondly, a private organization, such as MS, can tell their employees not to carry arms into the workplace, and it's perfectly OK.
Finally, if an argument is being made that there are "virtual arms," then one must refer to the "virtual Constitution." Seems to me that's the contract/TOS. I suspect it allows them to do what they want, and the user's option is to cancel their subscription. Really, does someone think they have rights when playing in MS's garden? Seems to me that it's only privileges, as provided by the contract.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Although amusing, this is a perfectly example of what results from Libertarian logic. If property rights override all other rights, then large property owners are effectively tyrants.
Within their property. You would always have option of not entering their little kingdoms.
How many times have there been Slashdot postings about corporate based discussion boards that censor negative comments?
And they have right to do it, regardless of the fact that it makes them look stupid and guilty.
Rand Paul came out a couple of years ago and said that racial prejudice should be legal in business, because property rights were absolute. (This time I'm not going to look it up, you go an find it on Google.)
That is not surprising, typical libertarian view is that anyone should be able to discriminate any stupid way he wants and this right is equal, ie. you could have "No $GROUP served" and "$GROUP only" shops side by side.
Personally, one of my dreams is to discriminate against a Libertarian in an economic transaction simply because of their political affiliation. In theory, they should be supportive of my position, since property rights are absolute. In practice, I think they would squeal like a stuck pig. I have a strong hunch that no Libertarian can conceive that they would be excluded from anything because of personal prejudice.
Now, that would be a funny & cool thing to do! A true believer should actually agree with your right to choose who are you doing business with, yet I think his reaction would be more like throwing a fit with "You hate libertarians? Then I don't want to do business with you anyway!"
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
I never wanted to buy any xbox avatar items before. Always seemed a little too close to playing dress-up. But I suddenly feel like I should buy one of these! Is that weird? I wonder if sales will go up this week. And if they do, will MS unban the virtual guns or possibly come up with new tricks to create scarcity.
This is just stupid. why are we even arguing about guns in an online virtual world.. a criminal doesn't care about the so called regulation on where he can and cannot carry a weapon. so the honest man whom enters a bank complying with all rules gets shot and killed by those who don't follow the rules...... what if.... every single person carried a gun?... would these retarded criminals then want to rob anything/anyone? nope. so.. you hippies and your anti gun pro censorship pro SOPA ECT ECT. you need to realize the 10 people whom agree with you. there are 1000 people whom are placing the palm of their hand and placing it to their forehead. its called face palm. followed subsequently by the phrase "I don't want to live on this planet anymore". its digital and it can't hurt you so who cares... your spending money on something dumb when people have cancer, Ethiopian people can't find a cheeseburger anywhere, and high school seniors in America can't spell.
This will really help teach kids guns are bad while they play call of duty! Just think of the children won't you you heartless bastards?
The 2nd has actual implications and matters.
This isn't "virtual arms" we are talking about, it is virtual fashion accessoirs. Virtual arms would be something that can do virtual damage. The "virtual" equivalent of the 2nd would be the right to own DDoS tools or something.
Just because it is a virtual something that looks like a firearm doesn't make it the virtual equivalent of one. If you can't shoot someone with it, even virtually, it is not a firearm. It's something that looks like one. But the 2nd doesn't give you the right to own things that look like firearms, it gives you the right to own things that are firearms. Very important difference.
I hate it when people haven't read Korzybski.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's an avatar, it has nothing to do with games.
So what will gamers use to battle each other, spitwads and rubber bands?
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Uh, not really.
Fascinating reading: http://www.amazon.com/Worldwide-Gun-Owners-Guide/dp/B004QXMFNM
Disclaimer: The only Amazon review of that book is mine.
Taylor said the school system has made it clear that if her son eats his pizza into the shape of a gun again and there is a similar occurrence, he will be suspended.
or roll up your sleeves. Exercise your right to bare arms.
Pathetic retardation...
I agree It is a virtual environment they can do what they want yadda yadda yadda... Yet it is rather silly. Considering the weaponry you can get in these games. For gods sake I can get a rocket launcher and shoot them at other players... Yet I can not have it show a gun in my avatar? Really?
What retardo manager greenlit that dumb ass idea...
If I was management there I would be asking 'who came up with this dumb idea and maybe we need to find you something a bit more productive to do'.
""For law enforcement officers and community members, any type of weapon being carried, openly or concealed, could appear as a threat to their well-being and is regarded as a public safety threat,'' Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said Monday."
Please tell me that LA County sheriff deputies no longer carry firearms, in accordance with the sheriff's beliefs.
Somehow, I suspect this is a case of "the rules apply to other people, not us."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
They're virtual...? Would you rather virtual arms be considered the same as real arms by law? Why would it NOT be like this..?
If you don't like it, move to STEAM.
The XBLA avatars and the Mii's are designed to be used on a family console, but all the pay-for props don't appear to work in games that use the avatars, so I don't see the point. Maybe it's just the derpy icons used on the forums.
At any rate, this is such a non issue, that it seems like whoever submitted this to slashdot must have been a teen.
Obligatory XKCD comic.
I was thinking, "of course not, cryptographic algorithms were classified as weapons, but were re-defined to be non-weapons." This was done, perhaps, to allow easier access to crypto for tech companies and to loosen laws allowing export of technology. But without that, we can no longer claim 2nd amendment rights to own cryptographic algorithms.
That didn't occur to anyone here? Jeez, you guys play games too much, real life is more important you know.
Oh shit, my avatar is in need of an AR15/M16/M4 or some other evil black rifle - I tried looking a while back and couldn't find one and just figured MS banned them to protect teh childrenz from images of firearms. Anyone know where I can get one before its too late?
So your XBL avatar won't be displayed with anything resembling a gun (unless you're grandfathered, which means virtual guns will still be all over XBL)...but you can still use virtual guns inside the games themselves to shoot enemies in the face, right?
Makes sense, MS. Got to protect the chilluns.
I could not have said it better myself.
To the naysayers:
Are you willing to be Ghandi? Will you endure the suffering that he did? Will you offer the lives of your own family during the transition period while people "gradually move on"? I'm won't!
To the physically imposing who cite no personal need for guns. That's great. No one is wanting to force you to carry one. They just want to reserve the right to do so if they wish. Are you afraid of them? Look again at the start of this paragraph and then that last sentence. Now return to the parent post.
To those that themselves are so terrified by guns that they constantly call for them to be banned I ask; why are you so afraid of guns? It is a simple pipe, a tool, that can launch a small piece of metal at great speed. In itself it is completely harmless. It is the individual that wields it that you should fear. But that individual is no less dangerous without a gun. He will use knives/machetes, clubs, rocks or even his bare hands. Your fear of guns is irrational and criminal/death/injury statistics prove it. Choose any gun banning nation; are there no violent crimes? Are there no murders? Are there no accidental deaths by the victims own hand or by another's? Should hammers not also be banned because people bash other people's heads in with them?
The right to bare arms starts with thought, as stated in the parent post. But, with the constant onslaught of irrational fear mongers calling for bans, people get tired of explaining things. The argument slowly devolves into the trite, "pry it from my cold dead hands".
...the right to keep and bear arms. God himself gave me that right.
The US Constitution tells the government it's supposed to keep it's fucking fingers off that right.
I also have no need to play with "virtual arms" in some stupid video game.
I have plenty of real firearms with which to practice and perfect my shooting skills and you should too.
currently avatars are accessible in-game in some games. MS impose a limit of E or E10+ rating on those games. Having those lancers appearing in those games can have some issues.
Wait... let me get this straight. You actually have to buy items for your avatar? What kind of fucked-up bullshit is this?
People are suckers.
Wear a Virtual T-Shirt
Seriously. There are such significant bigger issues to worry about in the world other then some geek feeling slighted because they can't buy their avatar a weapon. Is this not the definition of vapid?
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.