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.
Protect your virtual self and your virtual property?
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.
When the gun grabbers grabbed my pretend guns, I said nothing, because they didn't do anything anyway.
Then they took my real guns... and I was a submissive retard for thinking their impulse to censor the expression of owning a weapon had nothing to do with their desire to eliminate the private ownership of all weapons.
What's the point of that decision? A kid seeing a virtual gun is going to bring about the apocalypse?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Even weirder - Microsoft is still going to sell, and even make, games where you not only carry guns, but use them (sometimes quite violently). This is basically removing them from their out-of-game avatars.
Imagine if Nintendo pulled out the Charlie Chaplin mustache from their Miis (under the assumption that too many people were confusing it for the near-identical but far-more-evil Hitler 'stache), while still allowing hundreds of WW2 games to be made. That's the kind of stupidity we're looking at right now.
The Bear Jew does...
Don't be surprised when an international audience (like the internet) laughs at you for it.
Actually the TSA started this a long time ago. How many people have had to change T-shirts to get on a flight? "Gimme the dame plane or I will point my shirt at 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
As a result you get the Avatar market equivalent of Garfield
So you advocate narcissistic overeating fat cats as suitable for children! How dare you, sir. How dare you.
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 believe the real problem is oversensitive idiots and the desire to cater to them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
More to the point: the Second Amendment was designed to prevent disarming of the citizenry by the government, not a private entity. This generally applies to the protections of the First and Second amendments. I have the right to prohibit the bearing of arms on my property or to kick you out if you say something I disagree with.
Microsoft bans pictures of firearms? That isn't the government.
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
""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
No one grabbed your guns. You can still display your avatar at home, or on the Internet. You just can't do it on the Xbox network, a privately-run network.
The same thing will happen if you go to a night club in Texas. You may have the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, but as soon as you want to enter a privately-run property like a night club, or a titty-bar, you have to drop off your guns at the gun check-in like everybody else, or just choose not to enter the establishment in the first place.
Oh for fucks sake... You think that Microsoft not allowing pictures of guns on a service they provide is evidence of The Man trying to take away your actual weapons? How paranoid can you be?
You might as well say the fact I can't drink at work is evidence that prohibition will be reinstated any day now.