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?
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.
I'd like to see such a T-Rex style bear that has paws in spite of having no arms.
What's the point of that decision? A kid seeing a virtual gun is going to bring about the apocalypse?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The Bear Jew does...
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.
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.
Bears do have arms
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.
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?!
"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."
I learned from the US government losing interest in Iraq and getting ready to bolt A-stan that guns in the hands of determined citizens can make it difficult for even a superpower to maintain control and for it to do so requires a crippling financial commitment.
IEDs etc help, but firearms are basic to getting in the game.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
More so, you agreed that your rights are limited to "STFU and pay or GTFO".
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
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
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 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.
How did that work out for Chechnya?
""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
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.
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.
I thought it would be about a constitutional right to keep and bear DDOS systems and pen test tools.
Yeah, I too was expecting a discussion of the sorts of encryption, malware, etc that should be understood to be defined as "arms" in the modern world, and which of them should be considered to fall under the second amendment.
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.