Another Obama Cabinet Nominee Brings Video Game Legislation Baggage

ABC News reports that President Barack Obama has turned to Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) to fill the vacant cabinet post at the Department of Health and Human Services.

If confirmed, Sebelius will become the third member of the Obama cabinet with past ties to video game legislation. The others are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Commerce nominee Gary Locke.

As Governor in 2006, Sebelius pushed an unsuccessful attempt to legislate video games, saying at the time, "Video games and music lyrics promote violence…"

Ironically, in 2008 it was revealed that her son created a Grand Theft Auto-like board game and was marketing it by mail order from the Governor’s official residence. At the time, Gov. Sebelius commented that she was proud of her son’s creativity.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

99 comments

  1. Austin_Lewis says:

    Please note, her own personal beliefs seem to allow her to exploit her office to sell her son’s rip-off board game based on a violent video game.  I think we need less of those appointees right now.

  2. jer says:

    Even though she may claim to be religious, she isn’t.

    She only doing this through her own personal bliefs.

  3. Krono says:

    Well Michael, Anti-tank artillery and RPGs and Rocket Launchers are not firearms.  They ARE ordnance.  

    Irrelevant. TheSecond Amendment doesn’t specify "firearms" it just says arms. Given that part of the reason for it was to protect milita stores, which IIRC included some cannons, I’d say ordance would be covered by the Second Amendment.

    -Gray17

  4. Geryon says:

    "Of course, they also don’t have the same population" did I miss what you meant there or did you miss the "per capita of course" comment?

  5. Aprincen says:

    Chopping the head of a gang won’t make it go away, it will make the remaining underlings more violent in an effort to prove themselves. The amateurs who take over will generally fight more, with other gangs or law enforcement. The opposite was done in Sicily when prefect Mori cleaned the island. He destroyed the mafia by putting every underling (and the mid-level bosses) behind bars or in front of a firing squad. In a democratic regime this is not very viable. It was rather effective though. The mafia only revived because the US troops allowed the rebuilding of the organisation as a means of taking sicily without fighting (not an bad tactic).

    As for contractors not bowing down. They may not, but if the cartels kill a cop every day the government will have to back down those contractors. I still say this will be a hard long war that won’t go away with an fast solution.

  6. Austin_Lewis says:

    1.  It wasn’t even the whole city, it was a small part of London.

    4.  Even if you don’t agree with the increasing crime part, the important thing to note about this ban is that it does serve no purpose.  In America, ‘Assault Rifles’ are used in less than .6% of police murders (this also has to do with the ‘cop killing bullet’ bullshit).  What that means is that a police officer is TWICE as likely to be shot to death with his own gun than an ‘AR’.  The REAL reason that these firearms are on that list is because of the way they look.

    6&7:  Indeed, the government will have to be on the defense.  But if they were to bring in foreign troops or a contractor group (Blackwater, ie), they wouldn’t have to be.  True, you can’t sweep them out, but you can annihilate the top few echelons of leadership and the cartel will be done.  Most of the time, after you’re two or three tiers down from the head(s) of the cartel, you’re at the point where these people don’t have the know-how to band together.  The fact that they were able to do away with that police chief by killing his men means that they may need some outside help, and American help isn’t as likely to bow to threats, especially not contractors.

  7. Aprincen says:

    1. Anecdotal evidence from a major city.

    4. I don’t agree with the increasing crime part, but you’ve made it obvious that this ban would serve no purpose.

    6 & 7: Both may be true. But it’s also true that in a asymmetrical conflict like this the mafia has a huge advantage. The government is always on the defense. Even if the government is better armed and trained, it still doesn’t matter much. You can’t just "sweep" them out of there. And the mafia targets everyone. They managed to do away with a police chief by killing a cop every 24 hours he was in office.

  8. Austin_Lewis says:

    Indeed, Switzerland is unique.  They also have forced military service and training for nearly all, so everyone knows how to operate a firearm (I’m all for firearm safety classes in schools, personally.)

    As for guninformation.org, it’s absolute bullshit.  My personal favorites? Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein’s regime: Half-truth.  Private ownership of Ak’s by his soldiers was VERY common.  Everyone else had nothing.  I also enjoyed their claim that DC’s gun ban saved lives (bullshit.  DC was, for a long time, one of the most violent crime- prone areas in the country).  I enjoyed even more their figure 1.2, the British Crime Survey, which, did, in fact, report crimes decreasing.  Sadly, less than 30% of the precincts actually turn in the damn paperwork for any given year (all countries have this problem, to be fair.  Even the US only gets about 70% of UCR’s), and none of these number include the dark figure of crime (basically, theoretically crime is double what we see, even worse with crimes like rape)  With a less than 1/3 showing, it would look like crime was on the decline.  With the Peele Center’s statistics, it looks a lot different.

  9. Austin_Lewis says:

    1. Except the murder rates will not decline as well.  Look at England.  I was there working at the Peele Center for 2 weeks, and heard about 52 knife murders in one small area in London. 

    4. This ban changes far too much, and the real problem is that the things it changes are pointless and will only serve to increase crime.

    6. Indeed, the Contras were US trained, but they’ve fallen into a state of not so much disrepair as being unpracticed.  When they had US backing (unofficial as it was), they had the ammunition to expend for good weapons training.  Now?  Not so much.  The VAST majority of gunmen working for a drug cartel are less trained then an average US Basic Training graduate.  They’re basically thugs that were given a smuggled AK or MAC-10 and told to go shoot someone.  Because they’re so cheaply trained, it’s no loss when a team of 4 is caught or killed.

    7: But you still, as a country, would have to decide what to deal with in what order.  Even harassing them a bit each year would slow their ascent to power like they have now.

    PS: You can buy a grenade launcher (class 3, requires a tax stamp).  You can’t buy the grenades.  you CAN buy dummy grenades for the 40MM (the launcher often found slung under an M16) or you can find flares for the 37MM launcher.  The 37MM launcher also has a strange item called a ‘hornets nest’, basically a dummy grenade that will fire a few .22s.  Highly impractical, it’s almost like a toy.  You can’t buy rounds that can actually explode. Occasionally, one can acquire some smoke grenade rounds, or some gas rounds (VERY rarely), but often the ATF will turn those away from private ownership. 

  10. Austin_Lewis says:

    1. Except the murder rates will not decline as well.  Look at England.  I was there working at the Peele Center for 2 weeks, and heard about 52 knife murders in one small area in London. 

    4. This ban changes far too much, and the real problem is that the things it changes are pointless and will only serve to increase crime.

    6. Indeed, the Contras were US trained, but they’ve fallen into a state of not so much disrepair as being unpracticed.  When they had US backing (unofficial as it was), they had the ammunition to expend for good weapons training.  Now?  Not so much.  The VAST majority of gunmen working for a drug cartel are less trained then an average US Basic Training graduate.  They’re basically thugs that were given a smuggled AK or MAC-10 and told to go shoot someone.  Because they’re so cheaply trained, it’s no loss when a team of 4 is caught or killed.

    7: But you still, as a country, would have to decide what to deal with in what order.  Even harassing them a bit each year would slow their ascent to power like they have now.

    PS: You can buy a grenade launcher (class 3, requires a tax stamp).  You can’t buy the grenades.  you CAN buy dummy grenades for the 40MM (the launcher often found slung under an M16) or you can find flares for the 37MM launcher.  The 37MM launcher also has a strange item called a ‘hornets nest’, basically a dummy grenade that will fire a few .22s.  Highly impractical, it’s almost like a toy.  You can’t buy rounds that can actually explode. Occasionally, one can acquire some smoke grenade rounds, or some gas rounds (VERY rarely), but often the ATF will turn those away from private ownership. 

  11. Aprincen says:

    1: I do believe property crime is not as bad as murder. A decline in murder rates is worth a lot.

    4: If this ban really concerns only semi auto, I suppose it doesn’t really make a difference. I’m still against fire-arms, but this ban doesn’t really changes all that much.

    6: The contras were trained by the US. I still see them as a mayor threat, especially since a huge part of the Mexican Army isn’t able to stop them. And while the local government might be highly corruptible, I doubt the armed forces would be swayed by drugsmoney.

    7: Of course the drugs cartels are on the top of the list, but the fact that there are other problems mean the solution won’t be as easy as it would be in a strong state.

    PS: You can buy a grenade launcher? really? Isn’t that some kind of ordnance?

  12. Austin_Lewis says:

    1. I’d prefer to look at their crime rate instead.  Much more interesting to see the increase as firearms were banned.

    2. Believe it or not, yes, though I’d hesitate to use the word execute.

    3.  It was a good point.

    4.  Let’s look at what’s left; revolvers (hard to aim for most, hard to reload) and low capacity pistols like my favorite, the 1911.  Why should law abiding citizens not be able to have 15 rounds in the mag? 

    5. I can’t remember what 5 started out as…

    6. The mexican military isn’t exactly a hi-speed group of people, nor are contras.  These aren’t some amazing soldiers, they’re basically thugs.  Same for the revolutionaries.

    7. No, I’m sure Mexico has other problems.  Personally, I’d make sure getting rid of Drug Cartels was on the top of my list.

    PS: They’re fine the way they are.  The purchase of a Full-auto weapon is very pricey.  It requires a 200 dollar tax stamp, plus purchase of the weapon (at least 1500 and that’s for shitty rip-offs of the original Mac-10).  If the weapon is suppressed (silenced) or SBR (barrel length under 16 inches with a stock), it is double taxed.  And if the weapon were, say, an M4A2 with a suppressor, a 11 inch barrel, and a grenade launcher, that’s 3 tax stamps for one gun.  Once you have the firearm, you basically can’t take it out of the state without re-registering.  Truth is, automatic weapons are used in VERY few crimes, and legally owned ones are almost never used in crime, just like ‘assault weapons’.

  13. Aprincen says:

    I should clarify: shooting random people in the street versus a crime with some kind of purpose. I know victims of robberies. They feel horrible and I probably shouldn’t be let alone in a room with the perpatrators, but I also know that they did not want their robbery to turn into a fire fight. Also I need a trustworthy source for that statistic (NOT the NRA).

    Which police are poorly trained with weapons? overgeneralisation. As a doctor of criminology, you see the victims, which are exactly that. You can’t prepare for every situation. As for rights, well that is another story. I understand you can’t outlaw guns in the US, but guns are hardly a human right.

  14. Aprincen says:

    1. Let’s go back to every frikkin’ democratic country with strict gun laws that isn’t a dictatorship. I believe the whole of Western Europe qualifies (except Italy and Switzerland).

    2. And they execute random people of the street?

    3. Thank you.

    4. Not all pistols. There are enough left to properly defend yourself.

    5. Not really helping.

    6. Commandos was wrong. They do have a high number of former military and military trained contras, even second or third generation revolutionairies.

    7. Yes, but it is still a way to generate a LOT of money in a relatively short time. That’s why they’re doing it. Do you still think the Mexican government has no other problems?

    PS: how do you feel about fully automatic firearms then? Just curious.

  15. Aprincen says:

    Of course I’m not okay with criminals having guns, I’m okay with criminals having guns while law-abiding citizens do not. I have seen enough violence that would only be much, much worse with the addition of guns, whether those guns are in the hands of the attacking or the defending party. I don’t cower in the corner when burglars are in my house, I first call the police (my phone is always nearby) and then I’d wait, my possesions can be replaced. If someone tried to rape me (unlikely scenario) I’d fight them off. I certainly wouldn’t carry a gun everywhere. Besides, this really does mean you have to carry a gun (which means you won’t get into clubs) all the time, because Break-in rapes are rare.

  16. Aprincen says:

    Switzerland also has very strict gun laws, not in ownership, but in carrying. Add to that the fact that the Swiss practicly invented the vault, there wouldn’t be much of a problem there. Then there is the fact that Switzerland has a tiny number of cities, most people live in small villages. Switzerland is a rather unique situation in all.

    As for Australia and the UK, the NRA said that crime rates have gone up. Not true. The NRA are a bunch of liars. Classic Rovian tactics: http://www.guninformation.org/

  17. SilverMelee says:

    You’re okay with only criminals having guns? I’m sorry, but that sentence just downright disgusted me and I just have to comment on this. You may be okay with rapists and burglars having their way with you, but I’m not.

    If somebody is breaking into my house and he’s A&D (be it knife, club, or gun), I’m not just going to cower in the shadows and hope a phone’s nearby, I’m going to let him know he picked the wrong house to loot. If I have a loved one who encounters a rapist, I’d rather them be able to actually fight back and really say "no." I don’t know hw your logic works, but I believe innocent law-abiders shouldn’t have to put up with a crook’s shenanigans.

    Yes, we have an armed police force, but they aren’t always going to be there to hold your hand. Call 911? Sure, they’ll show, but by then the crook has already gotten what they want and is long gone, and in a large city, finding them again is nigh impossible.

    I was robbed in the past. Like you, I relied on the police to help. But because the crime occurred in a large city, that person was never caught and wasn’t exactly a high priority on the list. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let myself become helpless and vulnerable again…

    — I do more than just play games. I draw, too: http://www.silvermelee.deviantart.com

  18. Austin_Lewis says:

    If you’re okay with only criminals having guns, that’s fine.  DONT BUY ONE.  Don’t try and limit my rights because you’re uncomfortable.  Criminals, contrary to your belief, DO shoot people on the street in Western Countries, and yes, a person can defend themself anyway.  What about the 70 year old Marine Vet who defended himself against two robbers in a subway?  Concealed Carry Permit holders stop around 2 million crimes a year.

    The police are also poorly trained with weapons, and they don’t HAVE to help you.  I know, you may be dumb enough to assume they’re going to save you, but as a doctor of Criminology I can tell you they often arrive after you and your friends or family are deceased.  If you don’t want to protect yourself, fine, but I choose to.

  19. Austin_Lewis says:

    1. Actually, its not retarded when you’re showing how limits on gun ownership leads to dictatorships and loss of other rights.

    2. I think American Policemen are more than happy to stop drug cartels that come in to America.  Sadly, they always arrive just after the cartels have executed someone.  

    3.Touche.

    4.  ‘ASSAULT’ rifle is an idiotic term used by the media.  An ‘assault rifle’ is a semi-automatic, gas (or piston) operated, magazine fed weapon.  These are used for many things other than home defense.  They’re used for hunting and sport as well, for two easy examples.  Oh but wait, this ban also affects PISTOL ownership, one of the best and most popular home defense weapons. Just because YOU don’t use an ‘assault’ rifle for home defense doesn’t mean nobody does.

    5. A moron, short answer.

    6. Actually, Mexico has long been seeking for a solution to its outdated 1st gen M16s.  Would it make a giant difference?  Probably not, but it would give them an edge in firefights.  I don’t know where you got the idea that the drug cartels have armies of commandos (tv maybe?), but that’s absolutely wrong.  The average gunman for a cartel has less firearms knowledge than a Mexican police officer.  Many of them are barely literate.  Look at the people who have been caught in America working with drug cartels to assassinate; they’re not commandos, they’re just Mexican youngsters willing to kill for money.

    7. Actually, smuggling drugs is very costly, and transporting a large enough quantity to meet a steady demand is their top priority.  Also, ‘upgrading’ is harder than hell for them, seeing as gunmakers who make military firearms don’t often sell to non-government groups.  Even if they ‘upgrade’ the upgrade won’t be from America, which goes back to my point of the AWB being pointless and meaning only to limit American rights

    PS: Nuclear weapons are a ORDNANCE.  And I said it’s alright for people to own a gatling gun because they can’t use it.  Do you know what the few privately owned gatling guns in America are used for?  Movies.  Do you know how much it costs to operate it for a few days?  MILLIONS. The average person, even if they could afford the $100,000 gatling gun itself, does not have the know-how to hook it up to a battery, nor even to figure out what kind of battery it would need to operate.  Honestly, the only sure way to get a gatling gun to work is to mount it back into the same kind of helicopter it came from.  Otherwise, you’ll have problems firing it, feeding it, etc.

    I like how none of your points nor their answers lend credit to an Assault Weapons Ban.

  20. Aprincen says:

    About your second argument, I, and many with me, am perfectly okay with guns only being in the hands of criminals. First of, criminals don’t just randomly shoot people on the street (in Western countries anyway) and if they did, you wouldn’t be able to defend yourself anyway. Secondly, the police also has weapons. They fight crime so we won’t have to. And looking at those murderrates, I feel pretty confident about strict gun laws.

  21. Austin_Lewis says:

    Of course, they also don’t have the same population, many don’t have the same diversity of population, etc.  The real point is that when firearms are taken from law abiding citizens, all crime rates go up.  Look at Australia, England, etc.  Then look at Switzerland, a country where everyone has an ‘assault weapon’, and look at its violent crime rate.

  22. Aprincen says:

    Crime rates maybe, I wouldn’t know, but have you looked at the murder rates (per capita of course)? The USA is number 24 (of the countries which can give reliable rates), and let me tell you, the strict gun law-democratic countries don’t have higher murder rates.

  23. BearDogg-X says:

    And those countries have higher crime rates than the U.S.(except for maybe Japan).

    It’s important because by making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally own guns, it causes the people to be unequally armed: More guns in the hands of criminals instead of in the hands of law-abiding citizens(to protect themselves and to protect others).

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  24. Aprincen says:

    Now you are mistaken, There is a rise in violent crime (not crime overall) since the nineties. This doesn’t just correlate with the assualt weapons ban. It does correlate with the fall of communism. This doesn’t mean jack shit. Also, social upheaval does correlate with a higher crime rate, but not necessarily with the other factors. Also you’re forgetting immigrants and other groups. A good economy doesn’t mean everyone is rich or even middle class. And then there are factors which can’t be explained by such things as global economic wealth or politics, like the rise of South and Middle American gangs (and drugs cartels!).

  25. Aprincen says:

    And this is important why? There are plenty of countries with strict gun laws and democratic governments.

  26. Aprincen says:


    1. Godwin:  Completely retarded arguments since the birth of the internet.

    2. Do you think the cartels need to bribe American policemen once they have a whole country themselves? Besides, the cartels are already there. Who do you think they sell the drugs to? America is a huge market.

    3. I said under 10 rounds. An SKS has, in fact, 10 rounds. Which is not 9 rounds or less. Which is not under 10 rounds.

    4. Disarming the people who solve this? No, taking away ASSAULT rifles, not home defense weapons. And no way Joe the plumber is going to stop the Mexican gangs.

    5. Who The Fuck is Sara Brady?

    6. The reason the Mexican government is struggling is not the fact that there weapons are outdated. If a war could be one by better weapons alone then you really don’t know anything about recent history. Really, the fact their equipment is outdated means they can’t fight a mafia with a private army that can disappear into the general populace. An army that is composed of commandos and former military. An Army that has been equipped with the millions in drugs money. An army that can kill everyone they won’t for the simple reason their enemies wear uniforms and they do not.

    7. Do you really think Mexican cartels only use contra weapons and don’t ever upgrade? They have more money than the Mexican government (or at least, fewer things to spend it on).

    PS: So because there aren’t a lot of them they should be legal? And because they’re expensive and hard to use?  Same reasoning could be used for private ownership of nuclear weapons.

  27. BearDogg-X says:

    So DISARMING American citizens is for our own safety.  You know, I think Stalin and Hitler and Mao said that too, actually. 

    Another dictator who said that: Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillippines. In fact, when Marcos took power there, because of the Phillippines’ registration laws(knowing who had guns and who didn’t), he told the entire country to turn in their firearms within two weeks or face the death penalty.

     

    As Jesse Ventura says in "Do I Stand Alone?", But until we find a way to eliminate the need to protect ourselves, we’d better be thankful to the Founding Fathers for being smart enough to give us the Second Amendment, and be smart enough ourselves to see that it’s upheld.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  28. Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, I compete in 3 gun competitions, which require a pistol, a semi-automatic magazine fed rifle, and a shotgun.  My pistol of choice is still available under this ban (colt 1911 single-stack, 7 round or 8 rounds mag), my rifle is not (M14 with 20 round mags) and my shotgun is already covered under NFA, it’s a Class 3 destructive device (or, in layman’s terms, a short barreled shotgun).

    Of course, I’m always prepared for world war z; I don’t want to be on a rooftop in the middle of nowhere with an uzi and a shotgun as the best hope for my survival.  Although I’ll take a springfield 1911 doublestack anytime.

  29. Austin_Lewis says:

    But repeated correlation with none of the other factors that normally lead to a higher crime rate? (poverty, economic trouble, political turmoil, etc)

    Doesn’t sound so good.

    And Global warming doesn’t even have accurate numbers for the data they present, so I don’t really believe that we can be comparing the two.

  30. Austin_Lewis says:

    Violent crimes in young people?  Absolutely.  As a society, it went up a bit from 94 to 04, then began going down again. 

  31. Austin_Lewis says:

    Right.  So DISARMING American citizens is for our own safety.  You know, I think Stalin and Hitler and Mao said that too, actually. 

    So much of what you say here is poor information that it really shows you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.  So let me begin punching the holes.

    1: So there are no assault weapons with under ten rounds?  Too bad the SKS rifle is included in this, which has, yes, a 10 rd mag.  Oh man. 

    2: I’m sure Mexico’s drug cartels will try to come to America with their bullshit, but because we aren’t a police force as open to bribes, they’ll end up getting fucked over.  Mexico turned a blind eye to this problem for years, or made some half-assed attempts, and now they’ve got some problems.  But is DISARMING the people who need weapons to defend themselves the intelligent way to solve this?  I think not.

    3: The weapons used in Mexico are AUTOMATC WEAPONS left there with the Contras, not new-age weapons.  The only reason the Mexican government is struggling is because their equipment is even more outdated.  There’s nothing ‘sophisticated’ about an ‘assault rifle’ at all.  So the weapons they want restricted aren’t even covered. In other words, Holder is just looking for an excuse, not to actually solve anything.  Also, I didn’t realize it was America’s duty to solve Mexico’s problems by limiting our rights.

    It’s apparent you have very little grasp on the situation; come back when you have a deeper understanding that doesn’t stink of Sarah Brady’s bullshit.

    PS: A ‘gatling gun’ requires a few things.  1) A mount.  They cannot really be hand held. 2) A power source, otherwise they won’t be able to fire.  3) An UNGODLY amount of ammunition.  So, yes, they should be privately owned, but they’re still class 3 making them harder than hell to get a hold of.  I’ve seen ONE for sale in the last 8 years, and it had no power supply (most ‘gatling guns’ are powered by batteries in helicopters).  Of course, if you’re talking about the old crank guns, those are already legal to own by anyone because they’re antiques.  But I don’t think any of those are really in shape to be fired ever again.

  32. Monte says:

    wait, hasn’t violent drime been going down since the mid 1990’s… i mean i’m pretty sure that one of our favorite things to point out to video game critics that say games lead to crime is pointing out the correlation between the release of one of the earliest FPS games, and the steady decrease in violent crime there after… though i could be wrong and that was just the stats for violent crime amongst YOUTHS, and not violent crime as a whole…. though ofcourse, correlation does not mean causality; but we do like to point it out since critics often use correlation to support their arguements

  33. Aprincen says:

    correlation doesn’t imply causality. First thing they teach you in college and if I remember correctly, the reason you don’t believe in global warming.

  34. Aprincen says:

    The capacity bit is because the last assualt weapon ban had way to strict criteria which made it possible to circumvent it. making an assault weapon with a mag with under ten rounds is nigh impossible. Where the fuck to you think those mexican drug cartels have their markets? Where are they going to expand to once the Mexican government loses the war? (Mexico is taking the time to fight the cartels, but they’re losing) The Mexican gangs are allready gaining a foothold in the southern states. This is for the safety of Americans just as much as the safety of Mexicans. Think before you post!

    PS: a gatling gun isn’t ordnance, should they be privately owned?

  35. Michael Chandra says:

    Ah. So you’re concerned because they disallow you to properly prepare yourself for World War Z.

  36. Geryon says:

    I take issue with the idea that the ban lead to an increase, it may have occurred at the same time but I would need to see some convincing evidence showing that the ban was the reason.  That said since it is a full ban, as I mentioned before, it is can easily be interpreted as contradicting the second amendment depending on how people interpret arms, and if it is considered to cover every subset of “arms”.

  37. Neeneko says:

    That is the bit that makes the ‘assualt weapon’ ban such a bad piece of legislation.

    That, and it is so specific about the criteria that all the manufacturers made minor changes to get around the ban years ago. It did little to nothing about reducing the types of firearms available for purchace.

  38. Austin_Lewis says:

    Just because YOU don’t need an assault rifle (or, more accurately, a semi automatic box magazine-fed rifle) doesn’t mean that nobody does.  They’re VERY popular on farms for varminting (killing animals that injure livestock, including gophers), as well as for sport shooting. 

    The real issue here is that this is a measure that, when applied in 1994, actually led to an INCREASE in violent crime.  The same thing occurred internationally when ‘assault weapons’ were banned, along with pistols.  Violent Crime rates go up, but the government doesn’t let citizens have their rights back.  There’s no real purpose to this bill except to restrict the rights of law-abiding American citizens because some people in Washington don’t think that they should have firearms in the house.  Oddly enough, these are the same people protected by bodyguards with Uzis and M4’s.  Odd how THEY are worthy of the protection afforded by those weapons, but WE aren’t.

  39. Austin_Lewis says:

    Well Michael, Anti-tank artillery and RPGs and Rocket Launchers are not firearms.  They ARE ordnance.  

    To answer your question about banning, the reason is thus; why SHOULD they be able to ban a certain type of firearm?  Just because the way it looks makes them feel ‘uncomfortable’?  Because they’re supposedly being used in Mexico by drug cartels (I didn’t realize that I shouldn’t be able to own an AR because Mexico never took the time to deal with its drug cartel problem)?  Because a very, very small fraction of them are used in crimes?  Are those the best excuses they can come up with for limiting Americans’ rights?

    And the ban doesn’t only ban ‘Assault Weapons’, it also bans pistols with mag capacities equal to or greater than ten.

  40. Krono says:

    How is a ban on a specific type of weapons going against the second amendment exactly?

    The definition of "Assault Weapon" tends to be rather vague and broad.

    Does the second amendment defense apply to rocket launchers, or anti-tank artillery?

    It’s proponents would likely argue yes, though I doubt the courts would readily agree with them.

    -Gray17

  41. Cerabret100 says:

    I’m not up to snuff on what qualifies as an assault weapon, but if it means like assault "Rifles", yeah i don’t think most really need those.

    Only gun i "own" (my dad bought it for me but it’s in his name) is a 20 gauge shotgun i’ve used maybe 4 times…so my opinion doesn’t have much behind it.

    Guns, ironically enough considering how much i enjoy weapon upgrading in stuff like RE4, really hold no interest to me.

    Now my friend…she might not like this, but except for a riot gun (not sure if it is one, i just mentioned how it’s the middle shotgun in RE4 and she said she had one) and a few other shotguns (she’s trap shooter, actually pretty good) i don’t think that effects her either.

  42. Michael Chandra says:

    How is a ban on a specific type of weapons going against the second amendment exactly? Does the second amendment defense apply to rocket launchers, or anti-tank artillery?

    On a slightly less serious tone, why do you guys complain about a gun-ban if you’re not going to use those assault rifles to actually start up a militia in self-defense, and instead let all the white-supremacists and drug criminals buy them and use them in a war with the government and its representatives?

  43. Geryon says:

    Thanks.  Although I’m sure that our opinions on the 2nd amendment are different I’d say that since it is an outright ban, whether or not it fits within my beliefs of what the 2nd amendment means, particularly since I have no inherent issues with semi-automatic weapons, that it’s not worth arguing over since it’ll just come down to a matter of interpretation.

  44. Geryon says:

    Frankly living outside of the States I don’t know what Barack Obama is doing against the second amendment and I would be interested in finding out so I know if I should start a posting war, since 2nd amendment arguments no matter how innocuous at their inception always seem to escalate to the point of ridiculousness on the Internet.

  45. Krono says:

    As I recall what happened for the first two that had tax problems, after Obama nominated them, they filed amended returns and paid up. Then during the hearings the fact that they’d needed to file amended returns came up. Filing an amended return in this case basically amounted to them telling the IRS that they didn’t pay on some income and would need to be paying up. That they did so just before the hearings doesn’t reflect much better on them than if they hadn’t filed/paid at the time of the hearings.

    -Gray17

  46. Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, they didn’t say they owed money at all.  One of the things looked at in confirmation hearings is your tax records and filings.

  47. Krono says:

    Well, the IRS does tend to be a bit more forgiving when you go to them and say, I owe you money, than the other way around. We’ll see if that forgivness includes not being audited for the next few years or not.

    Regardless at least it still cost two of them their nominations.

    -Gray17

  48. Mr.Pat says:

    You mean those remarks that each and every time followed one of your spiteful, bitter, and hateful comments? The remarks that have always come as a reply to something inflammatory you posted? Those remarks? Don’t forget, you’ve provoked every single insult you’ve had thrown at you through your incendiary jabs at eveyone you disagree with. You have no problem being a jackass to other people, so I’m going to treat you like the jackass you want to be, because what goes around comes around.

    So either quit acting like an asshole to people who aren’t lock-step to you, or quit whining when I give you the exact same treatment.

  49. Austin_Lewis says:

    I’d love to package the majority of your remarks in a nice brown box, maybe put some wrapping paper on it, and hand it right back to you.  Hypocrite.

  50. Mr.Pat says:

    Like I said, all I’ve done is tell the truth – you are a hatful, bitter little man, and now that you’ve been called out on it you’re whining. You brought it on yourself the second you acted like a dick to DanHoyt; everyone else who replied to him was civil and polite, were you? No, you were an asshole to him, so now you’re being treated like one.

    To reiterate what I already told you, if you don’t like being being called a hateful asshole, don’t be a hateful asshole, otherwise it will be reciprocated every time. Period.

  51. Austin_Lewis says:

    Because I’m the dick who came here and, instead of adding to the conversation, insulted someone else.  Wait, no, that’s you.

  52. Mr.Pat says:

    And you’re just a hateful little gun-nut who think he’s better than everyone on the site.

    Stay classy, austin.

  53. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Well, it seems someone’s a real bastard, and it’s not Austin (and it’s not me for those who would think of that). This time, he (and I) didn’t make it on the Bastard List.

    ——————————————————————————

  54. Austin_Lewis says:

    Sure.  Now you’re just a guy supporting a politician who seems to not understand the right to free speech.  Don’t worry though, she’ll fit in with Obama and Holder perfectly.

  55. Austin_Lewis says:

    Cartels don’t randomly slaughter law-abiding citizens.  They pick out the citizens who speak out against them, who ask for police help,

    A few companies are more than capable of dealing with these cartels.  Yes, I know there are plural.  Once again, Doctor of Criminology.  And Sociology too, actually.  Mobilize a company out of Bragg and it’ll be over in a few months.  Quick?  Yes.  Clean?  No. 

    They didn’t want to deal with it for a couple reasons.  One of the HUGE reasons was that the Mexican government has always been very receptive to bribes.  They didn’t do much to the cartels at all for 20 years, and now we’re seeing what it sewed.

    Lebanon is actually a major arms dealer, as is some European country (up by Russia), plus Nicaragua and El Salvador.  They actually used to have big ‘shows’ where they sold to African war lords (think Lord of War or whatever it was called, Nicholas Cage was in it.

    And once again, ONE AK being traced to some dingy little store doesn’t mean that the 6000 weapons are from America.  It means one group brought an AK back.  If they’re from the US, then they’re not fully automatic, which makes the fact that the Mexican police can’t take them all the more hilarious.

  56. Austin_Lewis says:

    One rifle does not mean they’re all from here.  That’s one AK.

    And I’m going to run out to the post office quick, I’ll be back in an hour or two.

  57. Mr.Pat says:

    And yet you continue to prove me right with every post you make.

    There’s no hate like conservative hate.

  58. Aprincen says:

    And what makes you thinks cartels just randomly slaughter law-abiding citizens? A few companies aren’t enough to deal with the cartels. CARTELS, plural. One third of the Mexican armed forces is mobilized and has de facto occupied several cities. Do you really think this is will be a quick and clean war? This is a asymmetrical conflict just like in Colombia. It doesn’t lend itself for a quick fix.

    The idea they could put it off till tomorrow? Do you really think they were to lazy to deal with them? Of course not, there were other problems. And Mexico has been fighting them from the beginning. Of course there were bribes, but the Mexican government didn’t ignore the cartels.

    And Lebanon? that is completely retarded. First of, the US is in no shape to "take on" another country. Secondly, Lebanon does not fuel conflict as such, they are still involved in a huge internal conflict. Are you sure you meant Lebanon?

    BTW, the weapons are coming from the US: http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/26/america/border.php.

     

  59. Austin_Lewis says:

    I want to make sure EVERY LAW ABIDING AMERICAN can defend themselves.  The police aren’t omnipresent, and they don’t HAVE to help you.  They can choose to let you die, and the Supreme Court has held this up before. Letting people be slaughtered by cartels in America because they can’t have a firearm is moronic.  I agree, attack the roots.  If Mexico asks, I’m all for sending them some troops for assistance, a few Special Forces teams, hell, even Blackwater (or Xe.  Whatever you want to call it).  You seem to be of the opinion that we have no troops to spare; that is incorrect.  We have many brigades that have not been mobilized to Iraq, and a few companies would be more than enough to deal with Mexico’s drug cartel.

    Mexico has had twenty years where, in fact, the mafia was a big problem, and a growing problem.  They let what was once a small problem blossom into a gigantic organization that can operate without secrecy.  Why?  Well, there were the bribes, of course.  Then there was the idea that they could put it off until tomorrow.

    How am I so sure they’re only using Contra weapons?  Because weapons manufacturers don’t send Class III weapons to just anyone, because the average American can’t even get a hold of a class III weapon for less than 8,000 dollars, because there have been a LOT of old M4’s stamped ‘US MILITARY’ floating around since we gave them to the contra, because we also sent the Contra HAND GRENADES (WHICH CITIZENS CANNOT BUY), and because the weapons covered by the assault weapons ban aren’t fully automatic, which is what Mexico is having a lot of problems with.  As for gangs in the west coast and south, they use either ilegally gotten pistols or foreign (smuggled) Ak’s which they take to Mexico.  If you really want those dealt with, go after people who bought the pistols and then sold them (it happens occasionally) and go after Lebanon, a country that has fueled conflicts around the world for years.  Taking away the right of Law abiding citizens to bear arms does nothing to resolve this problem.

  60. Aprincen says:

    So you won’t to make sure everyone citizen becomes a soldier? There is a reason modern countries have police forces and armies. You have to cut the cartels of, that can’t happen if you try to cause a war between the people and the criminals. You have to attack the roots, the roots lie in Mexico. There lies your main problem: because Mexico hasn’t dealt with this problem before, they somehow shouldn’t be helped anymore? And it is a giant problem when your neighboring erupts in civil war (or something like it). And lending military might? Yeah right, like the armed forces aren’t already fighting in two other conflicts.

    Second problem: You assume Mexico could’ve dealt with the mafia before. Mexico has a whole bunch of problems, the mafia just recently became the main problem. You oversimplify the conflict. Wich brings me to my question: How are you so sure the cartels only use contra weapons? And what about the gangs operating in the southern cities (and to a lesser extend, in the West Coast)? They don’t have to bring their own weapons, they buy them there.

  61. Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, the weapons used in this ‘civil war’ aren’t even covered under the assault weapons ban.  Hand Grenades?  Automatic Weapons?  Those are left overs from the things sent to Contras, not new weapons smuggled in. 

    Personally, I think the people in border towns should get tax credit for buying a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle (often called an ‘assault rifle’.  It’s the best thing they have to compete against firearms stolen and bribed from members of the mexican army and police.

    Which brings me to my next point; all the years Mexico had the chance to deal with this and didn’t.  Sure, I’m willing to believe that someone was being bribed to look the other way, but I don’t see how this is our problem because THEY put it off until it became a big deal.  If they want help, I see nothing wrong with lending them some of our military might to crush the drug lords, but Eric Holder’s going about it wrong, and he knows it.  This isn’t a solution, its just a justification based on BULLSHIT.

    And Eric Holder either A) is aware that this will not help the problem because the weapons the Mexican government is struggling against aren’t even covered or B) is a moron.  Either way, he’s a worthless person.

  62. Aprincen says:

    So you think allowing assault weapons to fuel a civil war in a neighboring country is just peachy? What do you think will happen when the drugs mafia win the war with the Mexican Government? Which county will suffer the most after Mexico? Where do you think the incredibly violent MEXICAN gangs in the southern states come from? Maybe you should’ve asked yourself these questions before you start being insulted by Holder trying to stop the implosion of a neighboring country.

  63. Mr.Pat says:

    Wow, what a little ball of hate you are. Thanks for proving you can’t even be courteous to people who disagree with you.

  64. PHX Corp says:

    No, I do not support indentured servitude

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  65. PHX Corp says:

    You want to know Why I hate Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, She supports abortions(I’m Not concerned about the video game issue and her, I’m really concerned about her When it comes down to abortions(cause she supports Such right)) putting her in a position(HHS) would be Obama shooting himself in the foot

    This is pretty much my opinion on the kansas Gov

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  66. sqlrob says:

    From EZK’s link, since you won’t go there:

     

    "The survey found that 20% of underage teenage shoppers were able to buy M-rated video games, a major improvement from all prior surveys, and down from 42% in 2006. While CD and DVD retailers demonstrated some improvement since the 2006 survey, roughly half of the undercover shoppers still were able to purchase R-rated and Unrated movie DVDs and PAL music CDs."

     

  67. Michael Chandra says:

    Companies enforce? What’s your point there exactly? It doesn’t matter what companies enforce if I recall correctly, the idea is that the government doesn’t get to enforce the rules. The one exception is obscenity.

    By the way, doesn’t matter if a bill applies to games AND music, that’s still just 2 types of media. Books, movies, comics…

  68. DanHoyt says:

    The bill was about video games AND music, it would have put them in the same creative property boat. And most companies already enforce rules about movies and as was already said, pornography. Music and games are the two forms of entertainment that are rarely considered at a checkout counter.

  69. T5 says:


    When you couple her record with the fact that President Obama, during the campaign, said he would support federal money to study the effects videogames have on children, videogames may be on the docket (probably nothing extreme but certainly something that will be looked at). 

  70. Austin_Lewis says:

    That’s the same thinking a lot of people had about Obama and the 2nd amendment; I wouldn’t put much stock in that idea.

  71. Bigman-K says:

    True, plus she was probably just doing it to score political points in the period where attacking video games for their violent content was cool. Now with the Recession/coming Depression on us, video games are the least of their worries. Of course it shouldn’t have even been a worry to being with as their is no problem or harm coming to anybody whether children or adults by violent games. As for suitability or appropriateness, well that is the sole decision and responsibility of the individual parents.

    "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  72. gamadaya says:

    Who cares. I doubt anybody in the Obama cabinet will have any time to care about video games.

    ———————————

    Internet troll > internet paladin

  73. Neeneko says:

    For the life of me I will never understand the whole "speech has constitutional protection, unless it is obsene in which case it doesn’t count" thing.

    What is the point of free speech if judges have tools like the miller test to get around it?  It’s free unless we feel it shouldn’t be?

  74. Geryon says:

    Frankly I might be fine if they did something for all media but comics cause well… comics code, they kinda already got suckerpunched once.  Seriously though the comics code is one of my main reasons for being against government regulation of media.

  75. Michael Chandra says:

    "She recognizes that games are an entertainment medium like movies, books, and music."

    Oh?

    "the proposed legislation would require those violent games […] to be kept behind the counter at retailers."

    If by entertainment medium you mean porn, then yes. If not, then no. Education my tail.

  76. Austin_Lewis says:

    Apparently, you missed out on the right to free speech without government regulation, save in certain instances (and honestly, I think free speech covers inflammatory speech and obscene speech too, just not things like yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater’.  Of course, you did graduate from KU and yet seem to not know that the correct term for referring to yourself is alumnus or alumnae (alumnus is male, alumnae female), so I’m glad that worked out so well for you, and I’m sure we can expect the same from another spectacular Obama Nominee.

    Hell, maybe she’ll even work out as well as Eric Holder, who said that the reason we should reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban is that MEXICO is having trouble with automatic weapons and grenades being used in drug lords’ firefights.  Wouldn’t that be super?

  77. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Games are already held to the same standard as other media, none. Film, print and music all have voluntary enforcement of their ratings or lack there of. So why should games be held to a higher standard. That is what the Kansas law would have done.

    I don’t think anyone in the games industry denies that some games are violent or graphic. That is not what this is about. This is about whether the government should regulate free speech.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  78. Bigman-K says:

     "The bill made sense, in that games were going to be held to the same standards as other forms of entertainment in the state of Kansas."

     

    There are no laws barring the sale of any other forms of entertainment media to minors in any state or elsewhere in the U.S.A. except porn because minors (rightfully so IMHO) have First Amendment rights and porn falls under obscenity laws which according to the Supreme Court have no constitutional protection. Although i must say that IMO obscenity laws are all bunk and have no basis whatsoever in the constitution as with any other law that would ban speech on the sole basis of offensiveness.

     "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  79. DanHoyt says:

    As a Kansas resident and a KU alumni, Sebelius’ own alma mater, I have a great deal of respect for her. While she did make those remarks what she was intending was an education of parents on the adult nature of many video games. She recognizes that games are an entertainment medium like movies, books, and music.

    If games are to be considered a serious form of entertainment, we have to admit that some of them are violent and graphic just like any other form of entertainment. What she proposed was ultimately education, but she did offer backing of a game law that the state house put forword. The bill made sense, in that games were going to be held to the same standards as other forms of entertainment in the state of Kansas.

    I have also worked at a Hastings in Kansas. Kind of like a Borders mixed with a Blockbuster, the store had no interest whatsoever in preventing a ten-year old kid from buying GTA. I actually got in trouble once because I wouldn’t sell a kid GTA: Vice City. Hastings is a major chain in Kansas and hasn’t been targeted like EB Games or other larger stores.

    I would support Kathleen Sebelius in whatever position she is nominated for and I am a hardcore gamer who constantly reads this site. I couldn’t ask for a better governor who considers everyone’s opinions and rights in every situation.

    Now excuse me, I have to go watch KU beat Mizzou!

  80. Austin_Lewis says:

    Yeah, that’s the same assumption that was made about Barack Obama and the 2nd amendment, but that’s already proved to be wrong.

  81. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    If she does her new job right (assuming she’ll take it), she won ‘t have time for games.

  82. Austin_Lewis says:

    Hey, anytime.  I’ll revise my opinion when you figure out how to use the reply button. 

  83. DanHoyt says:

    Austin_Lewis I was going to complement and congratulate you for catching me on that, but then you just made a snide comment and sounded like a jerk, nullifying any respect you gained by reminding me that I had put the wrong form of "alumni".

  84. Austin_Lewis says:

    I don’t know how you can get off the hook by saying ‘oh, I must have forgotten your 140,000 dollars, let me pay you now’ and still be fine.  That’s not a mistake, that’s called ‘I figured I didn’t have to pay taxes because I was going to get away with it, but once I got nominated and people dug around, I got fucked’.

    Seriously, if one of us ‘forgot’, we’d be audited for the next five years.

Comments are closed.