Really? So if you ask Linux what time a meeting was last year sometime in July, it will give the correct answer? And if you ask it the time March 31st this year, it will also give the correct answer?
FWIW, every time I've installed a Linux machine it stored local time on the hardware clock also. You're usually given the option of which format to use..
I don't think you understand the full nature of the problem.
Of course it depends on the kid I guess. I graduated HS with high honors. I usually spent the night playing video games, and did my homework in the 'homeroom' time before first period. Or when I was in 11th and 12th, during a study hall before the period in which it was due.
Yes, and that's why we don't use flamethrowers, bombs, tanks, and HUGE caliber guns on helicopters, boats, tanks and other vehicals. That's also why there are no biologic, chemical, or nuclear weapons.
How do you explain me then? I grew up when everyone was upset over Mortal Kombat, yet here I am, years later, still having never done anything violent.
Easy. One is real, the other is not. Sometimes movies do get to me, but that's because sometimes a portion of my brain kicks in where I imagine what the person would be feeling if it were real. Its weird though, because sometimes a movie I've seen before will bother me, or one will bother me only on the first watching. But that's more of my imagination working on something it shouldn't rather than me being a violent (or non-violent) person.
I'm saying that quite possibly, those who ALREADY have that predisposition to violence will find it just that much more easy to enact thier fantacies after they have seen it done numerous times before.
Every human being alive is predisposed to violence. Lets stop pretending here ok? What you mean is someone that's already nuts might get ideas from a game. I'll buy that. Now does that mean its the games fault? No. The nut was a nut before.
Any mental safeguard there may have been before, has been eroded over time by violent images.
I've yet to see a single video game that's as graphic as recent movies. Yet you're blaming the video games? Please, be rational.
No, I didn't say that. I said the growing liberal CORE of the party intends to take the liberal interpretation. We're not the Democratic Party. We're a part of the party, and we're growing in influence. And, we don't have any problems with people having guns.... Exactly.
You're right, I misread. However, I seriously doubt Hillary is going anywhere, so I doubt that this core of which is speak is gaining ground as you claim.
It is true that there is no legislation or court cases right now. You're talking about old legislation. We're not interested in enacting more gun controls. I just wasn't specific enough in my comment, so you call me an ass.
The fact that you are ok with the laws already passed is disturbing, and makes me have doubts. If you really are serious about your claims, you'd be working to undoing any existing laws. And that second link did contain current legislation... I suggest you check it. Calling you an ass was uncalled for though and I appologize.
And the only reason I said 'national' was to acknowlege that some places have local laws. I'm being honest here. Nationally, were' not pushing any current legislation, and we're not going to. Quit being so confrontational. I don't give a shit if you have a gun or not, and nobody in the Democratic party is going to take your guns away when the liberal core gets done throwing out the people who don't embrace our values. Seriously.
Don't Democrats do anything locally? You say nationally you're not pushing any legisation, which implies to me that Dems are pushing some locally. Otherwise you wouldn't qualify your statement with 'nationally.' Sorry if I sound confrontational, but both parties still seem to me to be a-ok with stripping rights. And until I see you guys kick out Hillary, I'm not going to change my opinions about the Democrats.
So, according your rules, if Achmed in Chicago calls Osama BinLaden's phone in Pakistan, it doesn't mean anything really?
Nice red herring. For one, Bin Laden doesn't have a cell phone. Secondly, is calling him in and of itself PROOF that Achmed is planning anything? No, it is not. Just change the names, and you'll see this is true. Joe calls Bill (someone who has a criminal past). Does that mean Joe is a criminal too? No, it does not. Does it merit tapping ALL of Joe's call without a warrant?
Now I'm not saying Achmed should be arrested for calling BinLaden, but I think the gov't should at least know what is being said.
Well then by all means, lets toss out the Fourth amendment! I guess that's getting in the way after all! Except that its not. Please tell me, why can't they get a warrant?
Achmed may be calling buy some goats for his grandmother who lives in Pakistan, but unless the gov't knows that, he's going to be on a watch list just for making the call.
Why? He hasn't done anything wrong. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? That's how our system is supposed to work, even when faced with terrorist. You assume everyone is innocent (meaning you don't violate their rights) until you have reasonable proof that they are not. THEN, you get a warrant. And simply placing a phone call or knowing someone isn't proof of anything.
People can be cleared just as easily as they can be implicated with this. But to NOT even listen because he might be buying goats is a bit naive. That's like saying the guy wearing the ski mask in the bank might just be cold.
Can they? Plenty of people already have gotten onto the no-fly list, have done nothing wrong, yet cannot get their names off (unless you happen to be a congressman.. hmm.). The last time I checked, the simple act of wearing a ski mask in a bank is and of itself not illegal. Add in other factors (such as they are acting nervous and its the middle of summer) THEN you have your reasonable evidence.
But you think innocent until proven guilty is naive, so I don't really know what else to tell you. It might be hard living surrounded by criminals...
As an exercise, prove to me that you are not a terrorist.
I didn't see that listed in the definition. Let's look at it again: "Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Well, anti- anarchism, communism and liberalism rules out a bunch of people doesn't it? Under fascism, those things are allowed (a communist party, a liberal party). Authoritarian governments rarely (if ever) respected anyones rights; after all, you're at the authority's mercy. You do what they say, and that's it.
I didn't say that. Brownshirts were shitheads because they were Nazi's, not because they were Fascists. I said most Germans were good people. Are you saying that all Germans are bad people?
So good people support a government that is inturning and forcing a group of people into poverty, becaus of their religous beliefs? Is THAT what good people do? Turn a blind eye because Hitler got the economy back on track? And why are you implying that I think ALL Germans are bad? We are talking about a specific timeframe, please limit your comments to that timeframe.
And no, the Jews were not happy during this time, but that was not my point. My point was that killing Jews is not a foundation of Fascism. It was the Nazi's that did that, not Fascism.
Isn't it funny though that the worst Genocide in history occured while Fascist governments were running the show? Oh, while your reading Wikipedia, you forgot to read this: "The original fascist (fascismo) movement ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems. The most notable of these parties, created after World War I, are the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) under Adolf Hitler."
Hmm... the most notable fascist party were the Nazis..
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Fascist, but I'm tired of people throwing the word around to describe whoever they don't like. I think the definition fits Japan better than the US, but that does not make Japan evil.
I am too, but you're off base in thinking that there isn't something inherently wrong with fascism. I doubt Japan's current government fits that bill either, especially because one of the key components (militarism) is missing.
First off, stick what what you said. You said Democrats take the most liberal interpretation of all amendments, which is not true, since Democrats are pushing for gun control and restictions on video games. Unless those are the bad leaders you're kicking out of the party. So when is Hillary Clinton going to be kicked out?
There's no national gun control legislation or even court cases in the works anywhere. And, that's the way it's going to stay.
What an uninformed ass. I guess you never heard of the Brady Bill or know anything about these proposals?
Also, why do you qualify gun control laws with 'national?' Are the democrats supporting state level gun control laws?
Ya, ok. You seem to be confusing bias in research with bias as to how that research is applied. Oh, nevermind that you can run a power plant.
Nationalism- and very dangerous nationalism at that, just ask the crew of Apollo 13.
Again, nothing with the research itself. The crew of Apollo 13 were volunters.
No, both of those are heavily rooted in pure politics, and the math is chosen to support the predetermined conclusion.
The predetermined conclusion that we can get to the moon? So when science tells us a certain amount of force is required to leave the planet, you think you can come up with a different answer, and then use that answer to leave the planet as well? Ok, keep dreaming.
I don't doubt the math one bit- whenever you choose your data to support a predetermined conclusion, the math should bear you out. If it doesn't, your data hasn't been chosen carefully enough, and you need to redefine your personal meaning of "objective".
Yes, and I'm sure you'll be able to back up whatever you want via an experiment. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Plenty of experiements have shown the opposite of what was expected.
Interesting how you use the corrupting influence of the religion of mammon to try to prove a lack of bias. This either shows you don't understand how personal interest works in the human psyche, or that you don't understand the meaning of the word bias. I'm not sure which.
Who said anything about greed? Is there something inherently wrong with working for a living? I think you should put down whatever your smoking.
I have, a couple. The Bali Water Worshipers, Buddhists, Scientists, The Tao- each of these is a system of thought created to describe, and sometimes change, the world around us. The normative word is "religions".
The goal of science isn't to change the world around us, it is to learn about it. The different between religions and science is that anyone can repeat the experiment to see for himself if the description of the world is accurate. Religions can't do that, they cannot offer any proof at all. You just have to 'have faith.' Science doesn't ask for faith, it says 'prove it to yourself.'
So tell me, do you still believe the earth to be flat, or was Pythagoras 'setting up the data to force his conclusion?'
I think that oath says more than you're hinting at. Notice no where in there does it say its his job to protect the CITIZENS of the country, likely because we are supposed to defend ourselves, not let the government do it.
Saying that the potential for abuse is reason to do without is absurd. Anything can be potentially abused.
I think the point is that warrantless wiretaps have a very high potenial for abuse. Besides, whats wrong with requring warrants? If the judge says no, the police probably don't have a very good case for looking at someone. If they say yes, they get to gather the information.
The police is a prime example. What is to stop the police chief from taking over a city? The military? OK, what's to stop Rumsfield from taking over? The potential for abuse exists, should we do away with the police and the military? Of course not.
I think our Founders would argue that we should be policing ourselves; part of the reason for the second amendment. They most certainly were against having a standing army, and it wasn't even until after WWII that the US started keeping one around. So yes, get rid of the army, its potential for abuse is huge.
The rest of your post is illogical babeling nonsense.
The key word is shown in bold. I think if you are calling a disposable phone located in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan from a disposable phone, listening in is not that unreasonable to me.
I thought the right to free association was protected. So mearly calling someone in a not-so-normal way means you're upt to something? Bullshit.
Besides, I don't have a problem with them listening in, it's what they do with the information that matters to me.
Well I do have a problem. Even if I'm doing nothing wrong, its still none of the governments business. See that's the thing, people are supposed to be left alone by the government unless there's EVIDENCE of criminal activity to show otherwise.
Do they stop a terrorists attack, I'm all for it.
Do you have an evidence that this has helped stop anything?
Do that publish what they learned or try to use it in court, I have a problem with that. It's not the gathering of information that is dangerous, it's what they decide to do with that info.
Which is why they are not supposed to be gathering it in the first place. Associating with someone doesn't mean anything really.
If you're making phone calls to terrorists, or they're making phone calls to you, your lines will get tapped.
Let me fix this for you: If you're making phone calls to [another country], or [people in another country are] making phone calls to you, your lines will get tapped.
That's more in line with what is really going on.
If you're not and they try something like that, you can sue the living crap out of the people that are doing it, and you'll have lawyers out the door to back you up. And you'll win.
I'm sorry, how would you even find out if you were tapped? And you honestly think that even if you did find out and sue, you'd win?
Your civil rights are NOT being violated. In fact, they probably don't give two craps about you, other than trying to prevent your butt from getting blown up. Nothing you're doing is of the slightest interest to them.
Really? So the legalization of free speech zones, watch lists which you can't see and can't contest, and more and more warrantless searches are not violations of rights?
I really think you should talk to someone that lived their life in the former East Germany, and ask them if "they didn't really care about [him]."
Do you really exact anyone to say that we'd let the Canadians fight battles on our soil? Kinda silly question don't you think? What do you think Canadians would say if we were having battles on your soil?
As far as we're concerned, you can't pick and choose which Bill of Rights you like and which you don't. We also take the MOST liberal interpretation of all the ammendments, even the 2nd ammendment.
Huh? Take a look at gun control laws and who's calling for restrictions on video games.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? So if you ask Linux what time a meeting was last year sometime in July, it will give the correct answer? And if you ask it the time March 31st this year, it will also give the correct answer?
FWIW, every time I've installed a Linux machine it stored local time on the hardware clock also. You're usually given the option of which format to use..
I don't think you understand the full nature of the problem.
Idiocy is thinking that you can just tell people to get up an hour earlier and that will magically fix our energy problems.
Same here, although I should give you fair warning that if you go to college you'll find that method doesn't work as well.
Of course it depends on the kid I guess. I graduated HS with high honors. I usually spent the night playing video games, and did my homework in the 'homeroom' time before first period. Or when I was in 11th and 12th, during a study hall before the period in which it was due.
Yes, and that's why we don't use flamethrowers, bombs, tanks, and HUGE caliber guns on helicopters, boats, tanks and other vehicals. That's also why there are no biologic, chemical, or nuclear weapons.
How do you explain me then? I grew up when everyone was upset over Mortal Kombat, yet here I am, years later, still having never done anything violent.
Easy. One is real, the other is not. Sometimes movies do get to me, but that's because sometimes a portion of my brain kicks in where I imagine what the person would be feeling if it were real. Its weird though, because sometimes a movie I've seen before will bother me, or one will bother me only on the first watching. But that's more of my imagination working on something it shouldn't rather than me being a violent (or non-violent) person.
I'm saying that quite possibly, those who ALREADY have that predisposition to violence will find it just that much more easy to enact thier fantacies after they have seen it done numerous times before.
Every human being alive is predisposed to violence. Lets stop pretending here ok? What you mean is someone that's already nuts might get ideas from a game. I'll buy that. Now does that mean its the games fault? No. The nut was a nut before.
Any mental safeguard there may have been before, has been eroded over time by violent images.
I've yet to see a single video game that's as graphic as recent movies. Yet you're blaming the video games? Please, be rational.
Taking pot shots at an idiot never really gets old.
Again, you are technically correct, but court filling fee can be anywhere from $25 to $100.
Also, you're not going to be dragged to their locality if you don't obey the court order. I don't know of any cases where this has happened.
No, I didn't say that. I said the growing liberal CORE of the party intends to take the liberal interpretation. We're not the Democratic Party. We're a part of the party, and we're growing in influence. And, we don't have any problems with people having guns. ...
Exactly.
You're right, I misread. However, I seriously doubt Hillary is going anywhere, so I doubt that this core of which is speak is gaining ground as you claim.
It is true that there is no legislation or court cases right now. You're talking about old legislation. We're not interested in enacting more gun controls. I just wasn't specific enough in my comment, so you call me an ass.
The fact that you are ok with the laws already passed is disturbing, and makes me have doubts. If you really are serious about your claims, you'd be working to undoing any existing laws. And that second link did contain current legislation... I suggest you check it. Calling you an ass was uncalled for though and I appologize.
And the only reason I said 'national' was to acknowlege that some places have local laws. I'm being honest here. Nationally, were' not pushing any current legislation, and we're not going to. Quit being so confrontational. I don't give a shit if you have a gun or not, and nobody in the Democratic party is going to take your guns away when the liberal core gets done throwing out the people who don't embrace our values. Seriously.
Don't Democrats do anything locally? You say nationally you're not pushing any legisation, which implies to me that Dems are pushing some locally. Otherwise you wouldn't qualify your statement with 'nationally.' Sorry if I sound confrontational, but both parties still seem to me to be a-ok with stripping rights. And until I see you guys kick out Hillary, I'm not going to change my opinions about the Democrats.
So, according your rules, if Achmed in Chicago calls Osama BinLaden's phone in Pakistan, it doesn't mean anything really?
Nice red herring. For one, Bin Laden doesn't have a cell phone. Secondly, is calling him in and of itself PROOF that Achmed is planning anything? No, it is not. Just change the names, and you'll see this is true. Joe calls Bill (someone who has a criminal past). Does that mean Joe is a criminal too? No, it does not. Does it merit tapping ALL of Joe's call without a warrant?
Now I'm not saying Achmed should be arrested for calling BinLaden, but I think the gov't should at least know what is being said.
Well then by all means, lets toss out the Fourth amendment! I guess that's getting in the way after all! Except that its not. Please tell me, why can't they get a warrant?
Achmed may be calling buy some goats for his grandmother who lives in Pakistan, but unless the gov't knows that, he's going to be on a watch list just for making the call.
Why? He hasn't done anything wrong. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? That's how our system is supposed to work, even when faced with terrorist. You assume everyone is innocent (meaning you don't violate their rights) until you have reasonable proof that they are not. THEN, you get a warrant. And simply placing a phone call or knowing someone isn't proof of anything.
People can be cleared just as easily as they can be implicated with this. But to NOT even listen because he might be buying goats is a bit naive. That's like saying the guy wearing the ski mask in the bank might just be cold.
Can they? Plenty of people already have gotten onto the no-fly list, have done nothing wrong, yet cannot get their names off (unless you happen to be a congressman.. hmm.). The last time I checked, the simple act of wearing a ski mask in a bank is and of itself not illegal. Add in other factors (such as they are acting nervous and its the middle of summer) THEN you have your reasonable evidence.
But you think innocent until proven guilty is naive, so I don't really know what else to tell you. It might be hard living surrounded by criminals...
As an exercise, prove to me that you are not a terrorist.
I didn't see that listed in the definition. Let's look at it again: "Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Well, anti- anarchism, communism and liberalism rules out a bunch of people doesn't it? Under fascism, those things are allowed (a communist party, a liberal party). Authoritarian governments rarely (if ever) respected anyones rights; after all, you're at the authority's mercy. You do what they say, and that's it.
I didn't say that. Brownshirts were shitheads because they were Nazi's, not because they were Fascists. I said most Germans were good people. Are you saying that all Germans are bad people?
So good people support a government that is inturning and forcing a group of people into poverty, becaus of their religous beliefs? Is THAT what good people do? Turn a blind eye because Hitler got the economy back on track? And why are you implying that I think ALL Germans are bad? We are talking about a specific timeframe, please limit your comments to that timeframe.
And no, the Jews were not happy during this time, but that was not my point. My point was that killing Jews is not a foundation of Fascism. It was the Nazi's that did that, not Fascism.
Isn't it funny though that the worst Genocide in history occured while Fascist governments were running the show? Oh, while your reading Wikipedia, you forgot to read this: "The original fascist (fascismo) movement ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems. The most notable of these parties, created after World War I, are the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) under Adolf Hitler."
Hmm... the most notable fascist party were the Nazis..
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Fascist, but I'm tired of people throwing the word around to describe whoever they don't like. I think the definition fits Japan better than the US, but that does not make Japan evil.
I am too, but you're off base in thinking that there isn't something inherently wrong with fascism. I doubt Japan's current government fits that bill either, especially because one of the key components (militarism) is missing.
First off, stick what what you said. You said Democrats take the most liberal interpretation of all amendments, which is not true, since Democrats are pushing for gun control and restictions on video games. Unless those are the bad leaders you're kicking out of the party. So when is Hillary Clinton going to be kicked out?
There's no national gun control legislation or even court cases in the works anywhere. And, that's the way it's going to stay.
What an uninformed ass. I guess you never heard of the Brady Bill or know anything about these proposals?
Also, why do you qualify gun control laws with 'national?' Are the democrats supporting state level gun control laws?
A political bias towards nuclear warfare.
Ya, ok. You seem to be confusing bias in research with bias as to how that research is applied. Oh, nevermind that you can run a power plant.
Nationalism- and very dangerous nationalism at that, just ask the crew of Apollo 13.
Again, nothing with the research itself. The crew of Apollo 13 were volunters.
No, both of those are heavily rooted in pure politics, and the math is chosen to support the predetermined conclusion.
The predetermined conclusion that we can get to the moon? So when science tells us a certain amount of force is required to leave the planet, you think you can come up with a different answer, and then use that answer to leave the planet as well? Ok, keep dreaming.
I don't doubt the math one bit- whenever you choose your data to support a predetermined conclusion, the math should bear you out. If it doesn't, your data hasn't been chosen carefully enough, and you need to redefine your personal meaning of "objective".
Yes, and I'm sure you'll be able to back up whatever you want via an experiment. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Plenty of experiements have shown the opposite of what was expected.
Interesting how you use the corrupting influence of the religion of mammon to try to prove a lack of bias. This either shows you don't understand how personal interest works in the human psyche, or that you don't understand the meaning of the word bias. I'm not sure which.
Who said anything about greed? Is there something inherently wrong with working for a living? I think you should put down whatever your smoking.
I have, a couple. The Bali Water Worshipers, Buddhists, Scientists, The Tao- each of these is a system of thought created to describe, and sometimes change, the world around us. The normative word is "religions".
The goal of science isn't to change the world around us, it is to learn about it. The different between religions and science is that anyone can repeat the experiment to see for himself if the description of the world is accurate. Religions can't do that, they cannot offer any proof at all. You just have to 'have faith.' Science doesn't ask for faith, it says 'prove it to yourself.'
So tell me, do you still believe the earth to be flat, or was Pythagoras 'setting up the data to force his conclusion?'
I think that oath says more than you're hinting at. Notice no where in there does it say its his job to protect the CITIZENS of the country, likely because we are supposed to defend ourselves, not let the government do it.
Well you know how incompetent the goverment is.
Saying that the potential for abuse is reason to do without is absurd. Anything can be potentially abused.
I think the point is that warrantless wiretaps have a very high potenial for abuse. Besides, whats wrong with requring warrants? If the judge says no, the police probably don't have a very good case for looking at someone. If they say yes, they get to gather the information.
The police is a prime example. What is to stop the police chief from taking over a city? The military? OK, what's to stop Rumsfield from taking over? The potential for abuse exists, should we do away with the police and the military? Of course not.
I think our Founders would argue that we should be policing ourselves; part of the reason for the second amendment. They most certainly were against having a standing army, and it wasn't even until after WWII that the US started keeping one around. So yes, get rid of the army, its potential for abuse is huge.
The rest of your post is illogical babeling nonsense.
The key word is shown in bold. I think if you are calling a disposable phone located in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan from a disposable phone, listening in is not that unreasonable to me.
I thought the right to free association was protected. So mearly calling someone in a not-so-normal way means you're upt to something? Bullshit.
Besides, I don't have a problem with them listening in, it's what they do with the information that matters to me.
Well I do have a problem. Even if I'm doing nothing wrong, its still none of the governments business. See that's the thing, people are supposed to be left alone by the government unless there's EVIDENCE of criminal activity to show otherwise.
Do they stop a terrorists attack, I'm all for it.
Do you have an evidence that this has helped stop anything?
Do that publish what they learned or try to use it in court, I have a problem with that. It's not the gathering of information that is dangerous, it's what they decide to do with that info.
Which is why they are not supposed to be gathering it in the first place. Associating with someone doesn't mean anything really.
There is really nothing inherently evil with the definition you have provided.
I guess if you don't think denying people their rights is evil, than sure.
The citizens of Nazi Germany were quite happy living under Hitler, and most Germans in the 30's and 40's were good people.
Really? The brown shirts were good people? The Jews were happy living in Germany during this time?
It wasn't fascims that made Nazis evil, but the other way around.
Ya, sure, because this was the only instance in which authoritarian power was abused.
Wait, so he's not just a guy that founded a beer company?
(I'm kidding!)
If you're making phone calls to terrorists, or they're making phone calls to you, your lines will get tapped.
Let me fix this for you:
If you're making phone calls to [another country], or [people in another country are] making phone calls to you, your lines will get tapped.
That's more in line with what is really going on.
If you're not and they try something like that, you can sue the living crap out of the people that are doing it, and you'll have lawyers out the door to back you up. And you'll win.
I'm sorry, how would you even find out if you were tapped? And you honestly think that even if you did find out and sue, you'd win?
Your civil rights are NOT being violated. In fact, they probably don't give two craps about you, other than trying to prevent your butt from getting blown up. Nothing you're doing is of the slightest interest to them.
Really? So the legalization of free speech zones, watch lists which you can't see and can't contest, and more and more warrantless searches are not violations of rights?
I really think you should talk to someone that lived their life in the former East Germany, and ask them if "they didn't really care about [him]."
Do you really exact anyone to say that we'd let the Canadians fight battles on our soil? Kinda silly question don't you think? What do you think Canadians would say if we were having battles on your soil?
As far as we're concerned, you can't pick and choose which Bill of Rights you like and which you don't. We also take the MOST liberal interpretation of all the ammendments, even the 2nd ammendment.
Huh? Take a look at gun control laws and who's calling for restrictions on video games.
Huh? Pure marketing? So if they don't really believe it why they voting for bills that they don't believe? This applies to both parties.