Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Right To Bear Virtual Arms?

Posted by Soulskill on from the preserving-xbox-live's-pristine-reputation dept.

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."

15 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Walled Garden by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And people wonder why I hate the walled garden approach to gaming... You can blow people away, but you can't say fuck... Idiots.

    1. Re:Walled Garden by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      No female nipples either. They are apparently not suitable for young children.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Walled Garden by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't say "fuck"? Are you kidding? You can say anything you want on XBLA. You're constantly accosted by ten year olds in Call of Duty throwing out every racist, homophobic, repulsive and offensive comment possible and there's no option but to either use it or don't use it. However, yes, it's bullshit. Why should a grown ass middle aged gamer have their experience nerfed to the point that it's appropriate for a six year old child? They have CATEGORIES that you select when you sign up for an account. There is a FAMILY section. If you are a child or you have children, select FAMILY. Then, Microsoft needs to actually pay attention to that fucking option (because they don't seem to use the Family/Pro/Casual/Underground/etc option for fucking ANYTHING).

  2. No rights in private forums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No rights in private forums by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>There are many real world places that won't allow you to enter with a gun.

      Yes, it's called "California."

      http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/10/local/la-me-brown-guns-20111011

      >>They are not in violation of the 2nd amendment

      Yes, it is.

      I ANAL though.

    2. Re:No rights in private forums by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Disclaimer: IANAL either, but I'm a bit knowledgeable on the topic.

      There were two major supreme court cases regarding the Second Amendment in the last few years.

      The first was District of Columbia v. Heller. The second was McDonald v. Chicago. What do these mean?

      As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the right of an individual to keep and bear arms on their own property (home, land, etc.) is recognized and cannot ever be taken away. This means things like Chicago, San Francisco, and DC's gun ban laws are/were unconstitutional.

      We have unfortunately not yet addressed concealed carry or open carry on a nationwide level. I really hope that it happens soon. I live in New Jersey which is almost as bad as California when it comes to gun laws. I've known people who were shot, raped, etc. and completely incapable of defending themselves because of our shitty laws.

      Again, IANAL, but "bear" arms presumably means, you know, to actually carry them. (That is, in fact, the definition of the transitive.) Although the SCOTUS has yet to decide on this issue, it's pretty clear cut to me that we ought to be able to carry guns basically anywhere per the constitution.

      Before anyone talks about the potential ruination of society, keep in mind that there are more than a few countries in the world where this very thing happens and their society hasn't fallen apart because everybody is armed. Handing someone a gun doesn't instantly make them an idiot.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  3. Why? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's the point of that decision? A kid seeing a virtual gun is going to bring about the apocalypse?

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  4. The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism by Rix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't be surprised when an international audience (like the internet) laughs at you for it.

    1. Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't be surprised when an international audience (like the internet) laughs at you for it.

      They may laugh at us in between crises, but when things go wrong, they are more than happy to see the Cowboy Yanks show up to save them.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering the protests in the UK and Australia now, I think a lot of places have stopped laughing.

    3. Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Canucks with bare arms will probably get frostbite this winter, and then they'll have nothing to bear arms with.

    4. Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This would be the same "international audience" that we periodically have to save from some other part of the "international audience" because nobody but the Americans and the bad guys are comfortable around weapons. Right?

    5. Re:The "right" to bear arms is an Americanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because if you don't have that right, you are not a free man, you are a subject. And as such, your rights and your life can be taken at any time the people who are your masters decide to. This is not theoretical. See Apartheid. See a hundred other things like that and worse.

      You have only that freedom which you can defend, or which someone benevolently defends on your behalf. Presently Europe, for example, largely has this benevolent defense, but it has not always. Within memory of people now living, Europe tried to kill off entire races of people. It started by disarming them.

      It takes willfully ignoring human history and looking only at your own little myopic localized good situation to even ask that question. Ask those who had the wrong skin color or the wrong religion why the right to bear arms is important. Oh, wait, you can't - their "rights" amounted for jack when someone *with* guns wanted to take those rights away from those without.

  5. ffs. by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Bad analogy... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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