War Game Imagines Obama on the Run

The year is 2011. President Obama has just outlawed the private ownership of firearms, announced that the Constitution has been dissolved and revealed that the United States is going to be replaced by the North American Union, an amalgamation of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Revolution breaks out. Your part in this is to help capture Obama and the renegade Cong (former Congressional leaders).

This is the premise of a new online community and game calling itself United States of Earth. The extensive site is almost overwhelming in the sheer amount of information it provides, but centers around a browser-based war game in which a player can train and amass troops with the intention of taking over counties in Virginia. Players can also challenge other United States of Earth users in real videogames on Xbox Live or the PlayStation 3 network in order to win points to be used on the site.

Once logged in, users have access to a series of stories and videos that revolve around the fantasy setting, Stories include: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck Found Dead in Camp, Barack Obama Retreats to Virginia With Wife, Former V.P. Joe Biden Captured Outside Arlington and The Cong Loses Control, Pelosi Captured!

Obviously setup by a right-wing oriented person or organization, the United States of Earth website domain is registered under contactprivacy.com, a service designed to protect the name of whoever registered the domain. The terms/contact page of the website lists what they call a “virtual office” in Brooklyn, New York.

Also from the terms page:

We take the Constitution of the United States seriously here and apply many if not most of the freedoms contained within to our own United States of Earth. It is a shame that America itself no longer safeguards its citizens freedom as we enter this next glorious age of collectivism and decay promised daily by those in power, Republicans and Democrats. Will America survive? Only time will tell.

Via: Phillip and Fark

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


  1. 0
    Valdearg says:

    " Much, if not all, your writing above, is more that of a psychopath, rather then a conservative."

    You have NO idea how many time’s I’ve thought this same thing about Kefka.

  2. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I seem to recall one where they picked up some guys in Denver on the Day of the Democratic National Convention, just miles away, with loads of guns in their car. They had been being investigated prior to that for planning to assassinate Obama, if I recall correctly. So, yes, there has been at least one assassination attempt, and, if what I’ve heard from local conservatives that I know, countless threats and off color comments about how it should happen.. I think it’s disgusting, to be honest.

  3. 0
    Nitherean says:

    I could explain this to you, and why your wrong.  Honestly, your just a waste of oxygen in the end.

    You do not understand, any of which you are talking about.  Even if I took the time and effort to explain it, you STILL would not understand.  I’m sure many before me have tried, and may after will attempt.  Much, if not all, your writing above, is more that of a psychopath, rather then a conservative.  The way things are written by you, tells me, you because more aggitated and angry, without consciously knowing either emotion was taking place.

    Yes, I could easily destroy your arguements, one right after the other.  I would do it, if I took you as a mature adult.  But, the way you write, says you are neither mature or an adult.  Oh, your physical age might be higher then ‘9’, it doesnt make you anymore right, then the rantings of a nine year old boy.

    You really do not have a good grasp of the English language (or the American-English language to be exact).  Nor do you display a basic level of understanding of the US Consitution or law.  Much of your ranting is either mostly or totally unsupported with evidence.

    Go look up the defination of the words ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’, and ‘moderate’, before posting again.  Frankly I doubt you would do this, nor display a firm understanding in your writings in the future.

  4. 0
    Nitherean says:

    Really Chadachada321?

    You are able to see the full information from the Secret Service, CIA, FBI and the petagon regarding assassination attempts from the past, or at current to the current president, his family, or others at the White House?

    I didn’t think so.  As someone with THAT kind of information, would not say ANYTHING on ANY forums, let alone this one.

  5. 0
    Nitherean says:

    "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

    American Heritage Dictionary (copyright 2009).


  6. 0
    Ormick says:

    "Obviously setup by a right-wing oriented person or organization, the United States of Earth website domain is registered under contactprivacy.com, a service designed to protect the name of whoever registered the domain."

    OBVIOUSLY set up by those HEATHENS!

    I miss Dennis. =/

  7. 0
    JDKJ says:

    @Ol’ Doc Kefka:

    Can I ask you what exactly is a "technically black" child? Is that some kinda Techni-Color?

    You do get some props, however, for spinning the old "I’m not a racist, some of my best friends are black" defense into the new "I’m not a racist, some of my own kids are technically black" defense. That’s kinda smooth.

  8. 0
    PsychoBoB says:

    You know, all this "Revolution will come and whites will be oppressed no more!" crap all these extreme right-wing nut bags go on and on about has always seemed disturbingly familiar to me for some reason. It wasn’t until today that I had realized where I had heard something very similar to this insanity before. I was watching this documentary about crazy cults and it hit me! Their favorite Beatles song must be Helter Skelter!

    -Asking questions in school is a great way to learn. If you try that stuff here, you might get your legs broke. We once found a dead guy face down in the Slurm. It could easily happen again to you, folks.

  9. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    And that’s why you’re a fucking idiot. "The White Male is a 3rd Class Citzen." Yeah, they only own the biggest corporations in the US, and most of the seats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.


    Oh, and A. even if you do have kids, and B. even if they are black, it doesn’t mean jack shit. You’re like that judge: "I’m not racist cause I have black friends!" Yeah, well I guess Republicans NEVER EVER have gay children, then.

  10. 0
    Neo_DrKefka says:

    Yeah, I’d fit in real good with those people huh? I must be an evil vile racist because I don’t believe in your commie ideals but hey even though my two sons are techically black that doesn’t mean a thing huh?


  11. 0
    Neo_DrKefka says:

    Technically, the South which was represented by the Democratic Party succeeded from the Union because they thought a newly elected President who was a Republican would take away their right to choose to enslave. Not to mention, they all considered Lincoln an Ape looking overly religious Republican, sound familiar?

    Looks like Democratic Rhetoric hasn’t changed.

    The issue is who would defend Obama is Obama choose to remove term limits and declare himself President for Life or King? Again, the Marines and the Military hold great respect for this country but when you have someone who surrounds himself and has made references to taking away rights and giving more rights to other women and minorities and telling people like me that I have to pay for the mistakes of my ancestors then yeah who do you think the Military would side with?

    Congressmen and other elected officials easily break their oaths as well as Judges who rule on Empathy rather on neutrality and the word of law but our Military are god fearing people who love this country. Do we want this country to fail? No, our stance has not changed since Bush was in office, do we want Obama to fundamentally change this country and take away our rights afforded to us by the Constitution?

    Yes this country with the baby boomer hippie generation has made this an apathetic and weak country but we as a people who have all the natural resources and could have the best economy are being pushed out of our jobs to conform to someone’s ideology and to tell you the truth Obama is the best thing to happen to this country to wake men and women up.

    Too long have people stood silent and let a small minority hijack a political party and take over various positions and take positions that they feel we serve them rather then our elected officials serve us.

    The discontent is growing louder and louder. Obama is a lame duck regardless, he is Jimmy Carter all over again but unlike Carter, Obama’s politics and Political advisors are scary people.

    Again if Obama decided to declare himself Rexx or do something to really draw a line in the sand, I can see Civil War as inevitable.

    Those evil white hicks lets not forget Liberals are your Police, are your servicemen you think they’d protect your Lord and Savior in an instance he became Rexx(King)?

    This country needs a Civil War, too divided we are and as a Republic the tensions are boiling and soon there will be that line in the sand and we will all soon have to pick a side.

  12. 0
    Mattsworkname says:

    If I ever chose to get a class 3, only one is on my list.

    The thompson. and only for one reason.

    So i can try and convert the damn thing into a replica of the M31a pulse rifle.


    Yukimura is still here. "When he’s at his best, he’s little less then a man, and when he’s at his worst, he’s little more then a beast." W.S

  13. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    I don’t think it’d go to that end. I think the nation would collapse on various fronts first, and then there would be the resources to launch such.

    And even if it did, the North would just win again. /joke. But seriously, I think to incite an actual civil war, it would take a lot more than what’s going on. At most, you’ll probably end up with a bunch of smaller radical groups who go out on vigilantism, kind of like the Minutemen but with more activity. Granted, it wouldn’t be good for anyone they go after, but push comes to shove, their balls will be in a vice in the end.

  14. 0
    PHX Corp says:

    Then again I’m a little conserned at where america is heading, a civil war that could happen. I’ll just play Video games until both sides Cool down (not just Here but congress and the White house aswell)

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

  15. 0
    JDKJ says:

    No, what I’m actually trying to say is that he’s as bat-shit crazy as a Nazi. If I had to guess at Ol’ Doc Kefka’s party affiliation, I’d pick Aryan Nation. But more truth be told, I do regularly and for the sheer pleasure derived slap myself repeatedly.

  16. 0
    GavinBrindstaar says:

    How dare you! No one deserves to be compared to a Nazi. Are you saying that he supports the extermination of 6 million people? Are you saying that? Because if so, then maybe you should take a step back from your computer and slap yourself. Repeatedly.

  17. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Now now, don’t be silly! He’s not a Communist, no no, he’s a "Nationalist", BIIIG difference. See, kind of like how, say, Rush Limbaugh is a Nationalist. A Communist would hate America, he (both Limbaugh, Neo_DrKefka, and well, several other GOP members) just wants to see America utterly fail and destroy itself so it can prove President Obama was a bad choice! It’s like, when you beat your wife because you love her.

    And secondly, what he would actually say is: "Ruhm zum Beck! Ruhm zum Limbaugh! Ruhm zum Bush! Mein Leben zur Ehre Amerikas!"

    *thanks to my sis for the German translation

  18. 0
    JDKJ says:

    The White Male is a 3rd Class Citzen. Women and Minorities get more rights over men and over 70% of the jobs lost in this recession were male jobs.

    When you get done typing stuff like this, do you then goose-step around the room, while saluting your swastika flag on the wall and screaming, "Sieg Heil!! Sieg Heil!! Sieg Heil!!" ’til your tonsils fall out your mouth?

  19. 0
    Neo_DrKefka says:

    Good thing about the Marines, they take their oath seriously and Obama and other people may take their oath seriously and then break it to setup their own Government but we always have a trusty Marine standing by.

    Don’t forget, for every Roman Emperor who tried to take too much power there was always a Praetorian Guard standing very close who took an oath to protect Rome first.

    We all take the oath that we might forget

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    We do not pledge ourselves to the President of the United States as King! We take an oath one and all to uphold the Constitution. Everyone who surrounds this President is a Socialist or a Communist. The woman who declared war on Fox News admitted on video that her idol is a Communist Dictator who killed over 60 Million people.

    Of course Game Politics had to let us know this is a right wing group but hey at least they put an Negative Obama game on for once.

    Civil War is coming though, some people doubt it but people are getting pissed. The White Male is a 3rd Class Citzen. Women and Minorities get more rights over men and over 70% of the jobs lost in this recession were male jobs. We have an entire generation who cannot survive on their own and its so hard out there right now for us and they want to keep taking away our rights?

     I would of voted for Clinton over Obama. Obama being elected has woke many people up and the ‘change’ he has brought is pretty much slavery to foreign Governments or the loss of our rights. Carter gave away the Panama Canal which we built now Obama want’s to give the Mississippi to the UN for them to tax us to use it?

    There is going to be a War we are more divided then ever. Think about it Liberals, the Military in this country is loyal to the United States but they are almost all freedom loving people and backwards hicks as you call them but who will you get to fight for you? Hardly any of you have ever owned or used a Gun because you believe the Government should control and only use firearms and the only people you’d have side with you are National Guards (Maybe) and Gang Bangers who think Obama is a Black God but then again they can’t shoot straight and fire side ways.


    "A bad peace is even worse than war." Tacitus

  20. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Using an Ak for competitions.  Ah yes, I went that route once upon a time, for three-gun comp.  But I got sick of losing time loading the mag (it only seems like a little time, but it’s a noticeable difference from an Ar). 

    Why shouldn’t you be able to own a real Ak?  Surely, if John Popper can own one, you should be able to. There is nothing wrong with owning Class III weapons.  Now, owning fighter planes and whatnot, yeah, that’s pushing it.

  21. 0
    DavCube says:

    "It is a shame that America itself no longer safeguards its citizens freedom as we enter this next glorious age of collectivism and decay promised daily by those in power, Republicans and Democrats."

    Yeah, they always SAY that just to sound totally PC immediately before ranting the whole day about nothing but Obama. Hipocrites, the lot of them.

  22. 0
    Mattsworkname says:

    You know, as a marksmen and martial artist, im big on both guns and hand to hand combat gear, so Im a big second amendment advocate. In fact, the next weapon on my list to aquire is the civillian varient on the AK. Mainly, I want it for target shooting and speed shooting competitions, and it’s a reliable, stable weapon.

    that said, i think the notion that civillians should own military grade weapons is pretty extreme.

    Granted, i have some pilot training and could fly a plane. doesn’t mean it’d be a good idea and doesn’t mean I could handle High G combat like jet pilots do.

    To the extent this game is silly, i posted as such in the forums.

    to the extent about obamas policies and the second amendment, Obama himself makes not effort on the subject, but those he surronded himself with? eh, dont’ trust them so much.

    Still, right now, it’s not an issue that obama wants to get into, he has othe concerns to attend to.

    If your really big on second amendment issues, then Holder and Mayor bloomberg should be your targets, not obama. also good targets, Fienstien, shummer, and the Whole freaking state of californa. seriously, they just never freaking learn.

    not the enemy, least at the moment, Obama, Sotomayor ((She’s a judge who follows precident, Shock and horror)), and most of the democratic party.

    So chill out a bit and laugh at the silly game.


    Yukimura is still here. "When he’s at his best, he’s little less then a man, and when he’s at his worst, he’s little more then a beast." W.S

  23. 0
    mechwarrior says:

    Its hilarious to see someone say that they support the constitution when its been chipped away for the last 8 years. Patroit act, suspension of habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping…. Seems the only things that gets a rise out of conservatives are guns and gay people…

  24. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Wasn’t this the ‘attempt’ that was later found to be baseless?  It was just four guys, one with a G3 knockoff, who said they wanted to kill someone, and because two of them were white power nutjobs (I don’t remember if the other two were or not) the local media just jumped on it being an assassination attempt on Obama?

  25. 0
    F__ked up says:

    And Beck dreams of killing Nancy Pelosi.

    Also no one may have fired a shot, but bringing guns to a protest hmm makes you wonder what would have happened if Obama did go outside. After watching all the protests and interviews fox news provides of their people, I wouldnt put it pass them to try. The ignorance and unitelligence that is displayed is astounding not to mention the Hypocracy ever since the switch of the Administration.

    People have killed others for less than a text-based game, people have killed people for looking at them funny but even though its just a text-based game its also Propaganda so dont pass it of as random words that flash through the screen.

    I am a critical thinker not a dumb ass inbred conservative or a jackass liberal

    Pedophiles are the new Nazi / Communist. Labeling someone a Pedophile will get them blacklisted even though there is no evidence.

    Murder is not a crime when done in self defense, a time of war, or when done by court order (death penalty). People cry murder when fetus are aborted. How about when the mother could die? The mother is 13 years old? The mother was raped? The child is a product of incest? Is foster care really the best answer for children who’s parents cant take of them? How many children actually end up in foster care when their parents are dead beats? How many children suffer because their parents just dont want to take care of them?

    A 14 year old is child when they have sex but is an adult when they commit murder?

  26. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Oh come on. There haven’t even been ANY assassination attempts against Obama yet. Any. There were several during Bush’s reign, though. Once an attempt occurs against Obama that is DIRECTLY caused by a stupid flash game, then I’ll concede that perhaps he was intending for people to immitate it, but I don’t realistically see anyone trying to kill the President just because of a stupid text-based game if they weren’t already considering it. There are a couple comments above, the ones that talk about dreaming about Beck and Rush being killed, that are just as suggestive as this website. Just because he is hiding is name doesn’t mean he wants people to immitate it, maybe he just doesn’t want tons of hate mail. I wish I could still be anonymous on this site, especially when I make some of the more "colorful" comments, but also so I can admit some things that I had been hiding (personal facts that I don’t wish to be associated with this name).

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  27. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    The jackass who made this woudln’t be hiding his name unless he was intending for people to immitate it, IE the goal being ot incite violence agaisnt the current admin.

  28. 0
    Nitherean says:

    That’s rather amusing, Arell.

    Mr. Obama would never allow the 2nd Amendment to be revoked.  The whole thing regarding it, was information that was blown out of proportion by people who stood to make off handsomely.  The problem with conservatives is, once you know their fears, and how to exploit them, you have an infinite train of cash (i.e. cash cow) from a group that will NEVER question your motives.

    I recall the closest bit of legal material to effect us Americans with a revoking of the Bill of Rights, was Mr. George W. Bushs ‘US Patriot Act’.  Just how many conservatives came out, and opposed it?  None.  How many NRA nutcases claimed this would be evil for the USA citizens? None.  How many conservatives voted for McCain, to do, the exactly same stuff as Mr. Bush did for 8 years?  All of them.  Well, those that actually WENT to the voting booth, not just those who said they would and didnt.


  29. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    The SCOTUS only reafirmed our right to bear arms by a vote of 5-4. That’s pretty damn close, and far too close to be taken lightly. If the vote was 9-0 or 8-1, then I would agree with you, but with a vote of 5-4, it suggests that 4/9 judges want to take away our guns. Just saying. Sure, you’ll always probably be able to own a rifle or shotgun if you live in the country, but city folk (Chicago, DC, etc) are in the most trouble, with laws putting immense restrictions (or outright bans) on handguns and other defense weapons.

    Let alone the fact that we’ll never be able to abolish/re-establish this government as per our Declaration of Independence’s suggestion to do so. The point of the 2nd amendement wasn’t to allow us to own guns, it was to allow us to own guns so that we can defend ourselves from invaders of liberty, both foreign and domestic. If we aren’t allowed to own the same weapons as the military, then we aren’t being provided with the same ability to defend ourselves from those that would infringe on our rights. If you ever get the chance, I would suggest reading "1984," by George Orwell. It’s a fantastic read, and shows the direction that we’re heading if we simply allow the government to expand continually and continue to invade our privacy and our rights. The 2nd amendment is there to protect our other rights, because the founding fathers recognized that government continually tries to infringe on our rights and that the smaller the government was, the less they’d be able to try to infringe, and the easier it would be to re-establish a government should it become too powerful.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  30. 0
    Arell says:

    Oops, forgot.  Nobody is coming for our guns.  The Supreme Court just last year reafirmed our rights to bear arms, and there’s no real movement within the government to change that.  Even the conspiracy theorists’ favorite villan, Obama, isn’t interested in your damn guns.  When people started saying that "Obama’s going to take yer guns!", I went out and bought a registered handgun.  In 10 years, I’m going to get it out of my desk, show it to my Conservative buddies, and say, "Hey, I still have my gun!"  In 20 years, I’ll do the same and say, "Hey, nobody burst down my door to take my gun yet!"  In 50 years, I’ll be dead, but I’ll will my gun to one of these guys, with a note going, "Nyah, nyah!"

  31. 0
    Nitherean says:

    Actually, Austin_Lewis, the US Consistitution was created to govern ALL persons under its system.  Those who are in  the US of A and her territories.  All persons, who are: A) Legal US citzens B) Visiting through Visas C) Diplomats from foreign soil D) Illegal Immigrants E) P.O.W.s F) Terrorists G) Enemy Combatants. 

    If someone came to this country on a work visas, and through events, murdered someone else.  They would be held accountable through a jury of their peers.  They would be given a lawyer they could afford, or one assigned if they could not.  They are considered INNOCENT until proven guility.  They are afforded human and reasonable treatment (including medical as needed).  They are not tortured, or otherwise abused.  If they cause problems, that is added to their list of problems for the court to handle.

    Right to a swift trial has its roots in old European courts.  Go read up the history books on examples.  When you do, look under ‘Spanish Inquisition’.


  32. 0
    Shahab says:

    I don’t often agree with you, but I do agree that a law limiting the purchase of legal firearms to people not on a some "Terrorist Watch List", which is maintainted without the accused being convicted of a crime in a court of law, is ridiculous and unconstitutional.

    I do believe in some forms of gun control, like background checks and waiting periods, and I don’t think the public should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons, but outside of that we have the right to bear arms, it is an essential right and it should not be tampered with.

    The whole idea of basing ANY legislations on something as flimsy as the terrorist watch list is stupid. I do think that forgein "detainees" should be allowed acces to attorneys and speedy trials. I am pretty sure our gov. has played it safe and pulled in quite a few innocent hajis. Those should be allowed to return home.

  33. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Your comments prove just how deeply of an ignorant fool you are. And how lacking you are on such subjects. It becomes painfully obvious that all you are capable of is parroting as your defense. I’m going to say this as simple as I can.

    If the courts had not interveined, she would not have been able to take her case to court. This is because of her contract said so. Could she sue the contractor? No. That would breach her contract. Could she sue an individual? No. It would still breach her contract.

    The ending is not what is important in this argument. You apparently do not understand this. It is the fact that her contract said she could not go to court. It was the fact such existed. And the fact we are paying people who go this far.

    With the words of Barney Frank: "On what planet do you spend most of your time?… Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table… I have no interest in doing it."

  34. 0
    Arell says:

    There are a lot of things that are already illegal to formalize in a private contract.  Many of them being about signing away your civil rights.  (for example, you cannot sign an agreement to accept sexual harassment as just something to put up with, or to be beaten with barbed wire for missing your quota for the day)  The bill would have only expanded that to include "rape consent" clauses, so companies couldn’t avoid the consequences of placing you in with hostile employees.

    The fact that anyone would be against this, is not only hypocritical and ignorant of current contract laws, but also downright horrifying.  Seriously, we’re talking about gang rape here.  I consider rape to be more horrific than murder, at least those victims aren’t suffering anymore.  I think we should be bending over backwards to help rape victims in any way possible.  And regulating contract agreements is something we already do.  Particularly when we’re giving a company government money.  Are they saying that the government shouldn’t oversee its own contractors?

  35. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I don’t know if you realized this, but the court is there for instances just like this.  She was denied a hearing, so she went to appeals court and, LO AND BEHOLD, the decision was reversed.  Looks like the courts still seem to be doing their job.  An intervention, by the way, still means its going to go to court.  Once again, you still haven’t looked into if she sued the INDIVIDUAL who raped her.  Once again, great detective work.

    And by the way, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but global warming is a scam.  That’s why they changed the name to ‘climate change’ it’s called HEDGING YOUR BETS.


  36. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Yeah, after intervention. Otherwise, it would still be under Halliburton and KBR.

    "On September 15, 2009 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Jamie Leigh Jones’ federal lawsuit against KBR and several affiliates can be tried in open court."

    Yeah, and I’m supposed to be insulted on my detective work? To make it fair, it was only right above the very segment you linked to.

    You know what, politely, you are simply ignorant. In truth? I think you are nothing more but a McCarthyist conservative, who would rather listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck over an entire team of Ph.D. holding scientists that the global warming is a scam, H1N1 vaccinations are secret goverment coverups to implant mind-controlling microships into your body so you’ll become the drone of the one-world socialist shadow government, and the Earth is flat.

    Go back to your bomb shelter like back during Y2K, sunshine. You can keep arguing all you want, but your own inability to rationalize, or to even apparently process the logic behind opposing arguments, will only take you so far before you start to come off like, well, like you are now. Someone who is consistently beaten in a battle of mind, only to rely on strawman and obvious ruse, fill with more logical fallacy than Orly Taitz.

    Don’t worry, when I and the rest of my socialist friends take over the United States and create our fascist health coverage-for-everyone government, I’ll make sure to let the rest of the death panel know that I give consent to killing you off quickly.

  37. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Way to dodge the question.  Fair enough though, I mean, its not like he sponsored a bill to try and do those things, a bill that would be unconstitutional in its current form. 

  38. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Suggestions are just that: suggestions. Unlike actaul governement actions and laws, they contain no legal force. Indeed, they contain no force other than the force to persuade. By definition, suggestions can be neither unjust or unconstitutional.

  39. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Jesus Christ, how far to do I have to make this clear?

    She could not go to public court. Period. The end, that’s it. Do not pass Go. The end of the line. It is apparent you did not read the article well enough, if at all.

    "In arbitration, there is no public record nor transcript of the proceedings, meaning that Jones’ claims would not be heard before a judge and jury. Rather, a private arbitrator would decide Jones’ case. In recent testimony before Congress, employment lawyer Cathy Ventrell-Monsees said that Halliburton won more than 80 percent of arbitration proceedings brought against it."

    Yeah, feel better? My. Fucking. Ass. But it’s no surprised you would defend this. So much for personal freedoms!

    But thankfully it passed without those 30 GOP members, with 68-30.

  40. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Hmm, looks like they were given accesss to all those rights in 2004, after the courts decided that the fifth amendment did apply to them.

    Of course, there’s always been a lot of question about what rights terrorists have, ever since the IRA began fighting the British.  

    So, if you truly believe just what you said, then surely you agree that Lautenberg’s suggestions are both unjust and unconstitutional?

  41. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    So, KBR had a contract that she signed which said that she couldn’t see the COMPANY because she was raped.  Alright.  Is there anything in the contract saying she can’t sue the people who raped her?  I’m more than willing to bet there’s nothing there saying that she can’t sue the individuals who raped her.  So, the company is protected from lawsuits due to actions of other employees.  Now, the fact that they tried to cover it up?  I’m sure that opens them up to a lawsuit.

    Oh, by the way, many international businesses have mandatory private arbitration; it’s less expensive for everyone involved, it allows people to attempt to have their grievance addressed, and people who go through arbitration, on average, tend to feel better about the experience than they do after a court battle.  Especially a court battle with a multi BILLION dolllar company. It’s also a lot better alternative than having to deal with international courts and questions of jurisdiction.


  42. 0
    F__ked up says:

    I saw that too. I loved the Daily Shows take of comparing the rejection of the bill to the Arguents that were made to stop giving ACORN money.

    For those that missed it

    The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
    Daily Show
    Full Episodes
    Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

    I am a critical thinker not a dumb ass inbred conservative or a jackass liberal

    Pedophiles are the new Nazi / Communist. Labeling someone a Pedophile will get them blacklisted even though there is no evidence.

    Murder is not a crime when done in self defense, a time of war, or when done by court order (death penalty). People cry murder when fetus are aborted. How about when the mother could die? The mother is 13 years old? The mother was raped? The child is a product of incest? Is foster care really the best answer for children who’s parents cant take of them? How many children actually end up in foster care when their parents are dead beats? How many children suffer because their parents just dont want to take care of them?

    A 14 year old is child when they have sex but is an adult when they commit murder?

  43. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Regardless of what you believe and as evidenced by the rulings of the federal courts of this country, getting stuck in a cage at Gitmo does qualify you for all the rights and liberties of any other member of the community. That’s not my belief. That’s just one of those tenets of the legal system you were so concerned about before. 

    But here is one of my beliefs which I will share with you: justice for some but not all is justice for none. 

  44. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Yeah, and 30 Republican congressmen voted against an amendment to a bill, that would:

    "To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims."

    Aka. protecting the employees right to file lawsuit. Oh, and the crime this amendment was based off of? The case of Jamie Leigh Jone. She was gang-raped, held in a shipping container, and then:

    "KBR has moved for Jones’ claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom. It says her employment contract requires it."

    And 30 Republican congressmen voted against it.

  45. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Funny story, I believe constitutional rights only apply to people in this country legally.  Not to people picked up from other parts of the world in the middle of, say, putting diesel on a road, peeling back that layer of softened asphalt, and then putting a bomb under it.

    Having said that, I still think that the denial of a swift trial is a problem.  They were all given, eventually, access to an attorney (why, I even recall that the law firm employing Eric Holder did a lot of pro bono work down there for those people in Gitmo). I don’t know if I would call spending time in prison cells at Gitmo ‘cruel and unusual’, though the actions of some individuals within the prison could be called that.

  46. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Can I ask why you were never heard to complain about all the other tramplings of the "basic tenets of our legal system" done in the name of a "War on Terror" (a "War" which turned out to have very little, if anything, to do with actual "Terror") such as the right to speedy trial, the right to habeas corpus, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, the right to legal counsel, etc., etc., etc., etc?    

  47. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    So, you don’t care that not only can your 2nd amendment rights be denied, but your right to CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER (you know, one of the basic tenets of our legal system) can be denied by this bill?  You’re either A) an idiot or B) so optimistic it borders on insanity.  The problem isn’t simply that the bill might pass (God willing, it won’t), but that Lautenberg would right such a bill in the first place!  

  48. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Like I said before, if there ever is a time where this bill actually comes to fruition and there is someone who is prevented from recieving firearms unjustly under the provisions in this bill, I won’t ever question your unending fountain of Conservative Knowledge ever again. IN FACT, if I am wrong, and you, by some insane turn of events are right about Eric Holder and his nefarious intentions, I will volunteer to vote for whoever you want me to vote for in the election following this turn of events.

    THATS how pathetic I think your inane ramblings are.

  49. 0
    Icehawk says:

    0.0000012%. (thats just over 1 in 100,000 people)

    [Beware the oncoming sarcasm] 

    Yep that is sufficent cause to make sweeping changes that would affect the masses, afterall the masses are sheep and beleive what they are told on the magic box.     As for rights… well those have already been shown denied by Bush Jr.  Would not be a huge reach to imagine them modified in the future. 

  50. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    It also gives him the choice of who is or is not a suspected terrorist.  The name of the bill is misleading: in 75 MILLION FFL transfers, only 865 people who can be rightly called ‘terrorists’ were EVER able to get a firearm.  That’s 865 out of 75 MILLION.  or 865/75000000.  Obviously, these laws need to be changed oh so much.  Firearms and explosives are already regularly denied to people who are terrorists or might be terrorists.

    Oh, and once he decides someone is a terrorist, they don’t get to confront the evidence or the accuser, which means that they have to prove that they are NOT a terrorist to the same group that already called them a terrorist.  Yeah, that seems fair. 

    So, a law that says you can’t confront your accuser, don’t have the right to know WHY you’re being labeled a terrorist.  Hmmm, that sounds like a lovely time for Eric Holder to do things like deny firearms to people who are terrorists or might be terrorists according to the DHS memo.  You know, veterans, conservatives, members of the NRA, etc.

    Maybe you should read the bills.  Or just one of them, they’re both the same.

  51. 0
    Valdearg says:

    So, your whole terrorist watch list bullshit was based on a bill that suggests that the AG would have the authority to prevent the transfer of firearms or explosives to known or suspected terrorists??

    Becuase, you know, all terrorists should totally be given weapons..

    Your whole opposition to this is the bullshit idea that the government thinks that all conservatives are terrorists. In reality, you are just a complete idiot.

    Tell you what, I am so certain that that bill is nothing to be concerned about that, if the bill passes and becomes law, and the government restricts the transfer of firearms to someone who is not actually a threat, that I will never question your insane conspiracies on GamePolitics ever again.

    Of course, both you and I know that your fear of this bill is pathetically stupid, and I’ll never actually have to follow through with that promise.

  52. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Lautenberg’s bill is here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2159/text

    And here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1317

    One is the house bill, the other the senate bill

    The NRA’s take on it: http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/AFFlead2.html

    Personally, I don’t trust Eric Holder to do his job (which is prudent, as he apparently hasn’t been), much less to have so much power to decide what could reasonably be ‘terrorist activity’.

    Eric Holder, the same Attorney General who decided to let Malik Shabazz and his crew of thugs go after they threatened and intimidated people outside of a NY voting center, would be able to decide if people can purchase guns. 

  53. 0
    Lou says:

    So are you assuming that Bush didn’t deserved all the crap he got? Like yapping about capturing terrorists while playing golf after 9/11 was such a positive image for him. Bush was being threatened because of his arrogance and Obama is being threatened because a bunch of inbred white folks are pissed off. Look at the current rethoric and tell me that some (if not most) of it isn’t based on race. I am a conservative myself and I doesn’t take a Ph D. to to realize that the current guard of the Republican Party is  so out of whack that it makes me shiver at the aftermath in 2010 if somebody doesn’t grab a hold of the party and puts it in the right path…. And please don’t you dare to mention Sarah "the MILF" Palin cause she is part of the current cancer that plagues the party.If the party thinks that by feeding the neo-cons is gonna win elections they’re gonna get a rude awakening after the mid-terms.

  54. 0
    Erik says:

    What bullshit did Bush go through that he did not bring upon himself?  Saddam was hung, and he didn’t even have the weapons.  Bush invaded a country and hasn’t been hung.  So I don’t think that he is doing so bad all things considered.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  55. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    What I’m saying is that when people threatened Bush (and it happened repeatedly) the media didn’t seem to give half a fuck.  Hell, barely anyone ever reported all the times when Bush was so threatened by crowds and so harassed by the same that they had to change routes.

  56. 0
    Lou says:

    God you’re an idiot… Hell I take that back, idiots would be offended by my comments.

    Are you assuming that the Secret Service would of let someone kill George W. Bush. Maybr you’re not that bright but even at this moment, he is being protected by the Secret Service. Right now even residents from his curreNt neighborhood have to clear A checkpoint to go to their homes. You can’t expect to threat or incinuate that you’re going to kill a Sitting or former president of the United States. In a couple of hours you’re gonna have two agents getting in your face asking questions.


  57. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    The reason that one was so huge, is because he is the freaking President. He’s liberal, he’s black. He’s seen by opposition as everything from an immigrant to Hitler to the freaking Antichrist.

    Secret Service does not mess around.

  58. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Oh, but when people say in a facebook poll that they hoped that Obama would be killed, THAT is a big deal… >.> I’m fine with both, as it is FICTIONAL in both.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  59. 0
    Monte says:

     "Oh, another thing you don’t take into consideration: the vast amount of people that would leave the USArmy if they tried to take action against the citizens."

    Actually i’d say it kinda depends on who "shoots first"… or who really starts the revolt

    If for instance extreme right-wing conservatives decided to revolt NOW with the gov’t in it’s current state, then most likely the majority of the country, including the military would recognize them as "wrong"… at this point it would be felt that they either didn’t try everything they could to change the gov’t through legal methods, or they truly are in the minority who thinks this way… and if they were the first to turn violent in order to overthrow the gov’t, that would make it even worse. I mean would those in the military actually expect the gov’t to do nothing when citizens are literally attacking? Protests are one thing, but when you have citizens shooting and bombing the gov’t, then the gov’t has no choice but to respond; when it comes down to it, those revolters would be recognized as criminals… they’ll probably hold back though

    Only way military would defect to revolters is if the gov’t made heavy changes into some tyrannical powerhouse that would give a military response to a mostly peaceful protest… however, for THAT to happen in a democratically elected gov’t would involve YEARS of a good portion of the citizens BRINGING them into to power which implies support for change in that kind of direction… and when the theoretical communist tyranny is building up, it will be the supporters that would join the military and the detractors are the ones that will refuse to serve their country… I mean Ahmadinejad may not be able to win a fair election but he still has millions of supporters, and good support from the military as only his supporters serve under him (hence why a revolt would likely end terribly)… And the theoretical tyrant gov’t would likely start weeding out unsupportive people out of the military themselves… In the end, by the time the citizens feel their is need to revolt against the gov’t, they will have very few supporters in the military. 


  60. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Citing whole tracts from the pro-gun lobby? Which you apparently haven’t even read carefully and fully understood before citing to them? Can’t you do any better than that?

    Your pro-gun tract and sources cited therein do not say that the Second Amendment intended to secure or secures to the citizenry a right to the offensive use of arms and armed revolt as a means of redressing grievances against the government generally but, rather, speaks of the right to "self-defense" against a "tyrannical" government. Even if I adopt as valid the arguments made by the source to which you cite, there still is no recognition therein of any right to pick up arms against the government unless and until that government becomes "tyrannical" (i.e., no longer a legitimate democracy). Put differently and giving your citation full benefit of the doubt, until the government revolts against the people it represents, there can be no right of the people to revolt against the government. Or, put more simply for your benefit, just because you don’t agree with a law duly and legitimately passed by Congress and signed into effect by the President, isn’t a valid basis for you and your Teabagger buddies to gather up your AR-15s and start marching up to Washington, D.C as a resort – whether as a first, last, or anywhere in between resort.

    If you really want to establish that the Second Amendment secures an individual right of the citizen to use "the ability to revolt" as "a means of addressing their grievances with government when all other methods failedthen how about you do away with the self-serving and biased position papers and cite me to one single federal court opinion in support of this notion that the Second Amendment as properly interpreted was intended to impart or imparts to the citizenry in redressing generalized grievances a right to mount armed revolt as a last resort against a legitimately empowered government? If you find yourself having difficulty in locating such a court opinion, fret not. It’s simply because there is none.

    P.S.: As an interesting side note, the very same propaganda piece you cite contains reference to the notion that use by the state of a well-regulated militia in putting down illegitimate armed insurrection is a valid exercise of state power. Did you miss that in your reading? Or did you not fully comprehend its import? Have you tried placing your hands against your butt-checks and giving a solid push? I betcha that if you do so, your head will pop right outta your butt-hole.

    P.P.S.: Even chadachada, who you claim is "crazy" and has no "sense," is sane and sensible enough to understand that at best the Second Amendment is read and understood to secure a right of the citizenry to defend themselves against threats to the security of a free state, both external and internal. A militia is a defensive, not an offensive, force. Its purpose is to preserve the democratic govenment, not to destroy it by revolt. A constitutional amendment furthering the establishment of a well-regulated militia cannot reasonably be read to secure a right in that militia to take offensive action against a legitimate government. Unless, of course, the person doing the reading is, like you, reading-impaired. 

  61. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:


    So, surely, a right that was designed with the intent of protecting people from their government and giving them the means of revolting against the same would support the people owning arms much the same as those the military uses?

    Of course, you haven’t yet defined what you mean by ‘military weapons’.  But there is no military firearm that is ‘too powerful’ for a citizen, and your belief that there is proves that not only do you know little of firearms, you know next to nothing on the topic.

  62. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Right, you cannot make an argument that holds up to rational knowledge. Because not only are you merely repeating yourself without present any new information, but also cannot provide to reason as to why there is the necessity to own military weaponry, when firearms are already available (which, for the record, I do not support the banning of all guns). Hence, you concede. Or if you really want me to just come out and say it…

    You failed. You cannot best me. You are just repeating yourself over and over without probable reason. You are just a child, essentially screaming "GIMMIE!" as the drive of your argument. My argument is that military weapons are too powerful for the general public, whom cannot be trusted on "good faith" alone, but furthermore, there is no necessity to possess such weapons. Yes, weapons being the key word here, over, say cars, a vehicle of transportation. Weapons who’s primary purpose are tools used for the sake of some context of violence (yes, knives can be used for cooking, but there is often a difference between a knife for cooking, and a knife for warfare).

    You have yet to debunk what I have said, other than, yes, my knowledge of guns is not as intimate as your own, where as I have debunked you, using rationality and probabilty, over extremity. So far, all you have came up with is, to paraphrase, "just because we can!" yet without proving reasonable cause as for why. And you never will. Because the most you can come up with is so extreme, it is highly improbable, such as some kind of fascist American government, and even then, would you really abide by the law? No. So it doesn’t even matter if they were legal or not.

    You can snuff yourself in your little bubble of McCarthyism, fear, and overall unknowledged irrationality and inability to comprehend. You can pat yourself on the back thinking you’re doing oh-so-well.

    But you’re just lying to yourself. You have lost this argument. You have failed. Once more, I accept your defeat, whether you honestly see it or not. This argument is done. Till next time, sunshine.

  63. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    If you honestly cannot see the difference, you are of lower intelligence than I thought. I’m going to say this once.

    Cars do not equal guns. Cars were designed for transportation. Guns were designed to kill. Apples and oranges.

    I will not explain it again. Your argument is an irrelevant example based on poor conclusion. You. Lose.

  64. 0
    JDKJ says:

    One of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment was to provide the people a means of addressing their grievances with government when all other methods failed: the ability to revolt. 

    Where are you getting that from, Dr. Lewis? The text of the Second Amendment doesn’t say a thing about "a means of addressing . . .  grievances" or "the ability to revolt." What is does say is that "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As it was understood at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, "a well regulated militia" was a civilian force of males who provided their own weapons and other supplies and who the state could call out as needed on short notice to supplement the regular armed forces in the defense of the state from attack and otherwise assist in preserving security and order. Neither the text nor the historical context provide any support for the notion that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was intended to equip the citizenry to take offensive action against the state in the form of revolt. Rather and to the complete contrary, the apparent intent was to equip the citizenry to serve the state as needed in preserving the security and order of the state.

    I know the whole idea of armed insurrection against the Obama administration is currently popular among you and your ilk, but don’t get carried away by your own fantasies. Save that shit for when y’all are out in the woods on a weekend playing "Let’s Storm the Whitehouse with AR-15 Assualt Rifles." Trust me, y’all try that shit in real life and the Secret Service will most certainly cancel y’all’s admission tickets. 

  65. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    So, its fine for people to choose what kind of car they want, but when someone wants to buy an automatic weapon, they shouldn’t be allowed to?  Cars in civilian hands kill a lot more people than automatic weapons in civilian hands.

  66. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    When you’re talking of restricting someone’s CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, you, the fan of restriction, need to prove why it’s a good idea. 

    I didn’t ‘concede’ jack-shit.  Why shouldn’t the people be able to own the same rifles or facsimilies of the same rifles that the military uses? One of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment was to provide the people a means of addressing their grievances with government when all other methods failed: the ability to revolt.  As such, its only natural that people should be able to have firearms, even firearms that the media classifies as ‘assault weapons’ (Semi-automatic gas-operated magazine-fed rifles) or actual ‘assault weapons’ (SELECT FIRE semi-automatic gas-operated magazine-fed rifles). 

  67. 0
    JDKJ says:

    If you hadn’t already noticed, Dr. Lewis’ standard response to most all problems is to suggest that the solution can be found exiting the barrel of a gun. I’m waiting on him to one day say, "World hunger and famine? Not a problem. Let ’em eat guns."

  68. 0
    lumi says:

    "There are plenty of great, legal to own, alternatives that can compete with an M1A2."

    Bullshit.  Is it possible?  Yes, obviously.  Using only legally pursuable methods?  No, and that’s the whole point.

  69. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Your knowledge of guns is certainly impressive. However, your complete lack of knowledge about most everything else is frightening. Have you ever considered a more catholic approach to your acquisition of knowledge? Perhaps by occasionally reading a periodical other than "Guns and Ammo?"

  70. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Define ‘anti-tank’ gun?  And I never defended civilian ownership of ground to air missile launchers.  That falls into the ORDNANCE category.  Also, the average jackass can’t really safely use one.

    Once again, there’s no need to have a sports car, but plenty do.  Military firearms (M4’s, Aks, M60’s, all those classic WWII guns that you can still find floating around) are like the sports car of guns. 

  71. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Fine, then for what reason would you need an anti-tank gun? Ground to air missile launchers?

    Right, you wouldn’t. And there’s no need for you to have military weapons either.

  72. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    So why shouldn’t I have an M4?  I mean, a bullet is a bullet at the end of the day, right, and just one can kill a man.

    By the way, you’d be astonished how many of the 80 million people who own firearms are ‘professionals’.  You’d also be astonished at how many of the military professionals would leave if they were ordered to fight the American populace.

    I still don’t see how you make the jump to it being irrational to allow civilians to obtain ‘high-powered’ weapons.  You know what’s more ‘high-powered’ than the M60 in my basement, sitting in a Storm-Hardigg case?  My hunting rifle.  The 30.06 round it fires has more power in nearly all aspects than the .308.  You know what else is more ‘high powered’?  The Mosin Nagant that I occasionally shoot, which fires the 7.62x54r round.  That’s the same rifle, by the way, that Vasilli Zaitsev used to kill more than a few German officers, gunners, spotters, and sappers.  You know what else is more ‘high-powered’ than that M60?  How about my M82A1, or my Surgeon rifle (chambered in .338 Lapua)? 

    Here’s the problem with arguing about ‘high-powered’ guns: most of the people arguing against them have no fucking clue what they’re talking about.

    Oh, and people have won against well-established, well-trained militaries before.  I refer you, once more, to the IRA.  Once again, no one seems to be taking into account how many of the ‘professionals’ in our military wouldn’t fight against their countrymen.

    Oh, hey, check this out http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

  73. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Yeah, that’s great.  Hey, how has the crime in Australia been doing since that gun ban?  My wife came to this country from a city in South Australia (starts with an A ends with an E).  ‘More potential for crime, more potential for death, supporthing the overall mentality…’.  Yeah, you sound like you should go work for that bitch that first helped outlaw guns in your country.  You know, the one who told people who were competitive pistol marksman that they needed to find a new hobby?  Yeah.  By the way, more guns (especially in things like CCW) seems to REDUCE the crime rate and reduce the potential for death. 

  74. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I don’t know if you know this, but a lot of people hunt with weapons that fire the same round as the Ak-47.  It’s not ‘overkill’.  A real Ak has a select fire switch (more like a lever) for a reason. Also, describe how it is ‘more dangerous’ than other alternatives.  Because it’s a big, scary, automatic rifle?  Have you even shot an automatic weapon?  There’s nothing ‘more dangerous’ about any of them.  And you people keep harping on that line that the Ak-47 would be largely useless against more powerful ordinances, and keep ignoring the fact that the IRA, the Viet Cong, and the Al-Qaeda/Taliban forces are still using them with some effect.

    Even if I only buy an Ak for shits and giggles, its still my right to have one.

  75. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Well, to begin with, I’ve seen Ak type rifles used for hunting.  But why should I not be allowed to own an M60E3 (it’s in my basement) and an M4A1 (it’s in the gun safe)?  

  76. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    You really think that people can’t fight against the military without tanks?  Because obviously, the IRA bowed down to the Brits in Northern Ireland when they brought in the armor.  Oh wait, no they didn’t.  There are plenty of great, legal to own, alternatives that can compete with an M1A2.  Or rather, can demolish the treads of an M1A2, after which the tank is useless until someone can retread it.  Helicopters?  Ever hear of the ‘Jesus Nut’?  If you were to hit that with something as small as a .223 bullet, it would very likely cause the helicopter to crash.  Also, calibers like the .338 Lapua, 300. Win Mag, .50BMG, .416, and most elephant hunting rounds can penetrate a helicopter to cause major damage.  These same rounds can also penetrate armoring on HMMWVs and other vehicles. 

    So, when it all comes down to it, you don’t really need tanks to fight the military.  You just need a determined force.  The IRA had it.  The Viet Cong had it. 

    Oh, another thing you don’t take into consideration: the vast amount of people that would leave the USArmy if they tried to take action against the citizens.  I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: The officer ranks would empty, the SF units would empty, nearly 75% of the military would leave (and that’s a conservative estimate).  You know what they might bring with them?  Know-how and equipment.

  77. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    You got pistols. You got rifles. You got knives and can homemake explosives. A bullet is a bullet, and just one can kill a man. Humans are extrodinarily easy to kill, and that’s proven every day.

    And, what you are suggestion is a mere extreme. You cannot make assumptions based on such radical possibilities. Furthermore, if that were to happen, what do you honestly suggest? That you go against the fucking military (if it gets called in) who have tanks, helicopters, professionals?

    Even if you had legal access to such military weapons, that doesn’t mean you’d actually be able to obtain one, nor how to operate it. If your free speech is being oppressed, are you so worried about coming across as "un-American" that you would not bother to fight in the courts, yet, more than willing to fight with weaponry, in actual combat? How backwards that is!

    No, you fight in the courts. Rulings can, and have, been overturned, even ones made by the Supreme Court. Violence is for the last resort, not the first. And even so, if you become violent, you’ll only be faced with something far more superior. You will not be able to win with all the guns you got, if worse comes to worse, the military starts rolling in on tanks and armored vehicles.

    Therefore, it is absolutely irrational to allow civilians to obtain these high-powered weapons. Not only are you going off a future radical extreme, but you are also going on the idea you can win against a well-establish, well-trained military with the resources you cannot ever possibly obtain lest there was a revolt within that military. The idea of owning these weapons for defense, as your defense, is a poor one. Do you honestly expect absolute mass violence, some dramatic uprising of the people in a violent overthrow of the government? No. That’s a mere fantasy. The more likely would be you’d have half who say it’s a good idea, because they’re too stupid or ignorant to realize the possibilities of what such law could end with, and the other half who would probably become infuriated, but go to the courts, hold public demostrations, maybe even riot, yes. But not a violent militaristic overthrow of the government.

    EDIT: Oh, and we have something that England and Australia do not have. The Constitution of the United States.

  78. 0
    Im_Blue says:

    Hey im Australian and live is South Australia, and though I hate not being able to buy R-18 games im hardly itching to go bust my uzi. The sad truth is that Michael Atiknson is the legacy of  right-wing/christian values which obviously remain pretty strong in our government… and society to a large degree. Hell Gay people still can’t get married which is just plain fucked up. Point is more guns isn’t going to do shit untill people start changing some of their values.

    End of the day, more guns means more potential for crime, and more potential for death, and also supporting the overal mentality that the solution to some pretty complex and sensitive problems can be resolved with guns.

  79. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Okay…what do you propose we should do if…oh I don’t know…the Supreme Court Justices start becoming far more okay with blocking "offensive" free speech? If, over time, they start allowing restrictions on speech that is "un-American" or that is "demeaning towards the government"? Obviously, with the rest of the federal government supporting this, there isn’t anything to protect us from these restrictions on free speech. Hell, you can’t even fight it in court, because THAT could be seen as "un-American!" So, what are we supposed to do? Bend over and let the federal government continue to stick its giant, power-hungry dick up our asses? Eventually, our ass is going to be too full of dick for us to even defend ourselves, which means that before that point we have to fight back and regain our rights, re-establish a government that respects our rights. Obviously we can’t do that without weapons, but if you would like to relinquish the last thing that is protecting our rights…feel free to keep trying. Don’t say I didn’t warn you though…look at Australia, at England…what rights to they have to privacy or free speech, when the government tells them what VIDEO GAMES that legal adults can and can’t BUY!?

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  80. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    But that is simply not only unrealistic, but also blatantly negligent. I mean, there’s no necessity for military weaponry, other that to simply A. "have it" or B. to use it, and if you’re using it, something is seriously wrong, even if it IS simply for "defense."

    There is no logical argument you can make for owning such high-powered weaponry, and allow civilians to possess access to such.

  81. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Yeah, I’m not into guns so I don’t know very much. It was the first gun that came to mind. But even so, there’s just no need to need for any military weaponry, regardless of what it is.

  82. 0
    JDKJ says:

    @Autistic Lewis:

    Since your no-common sense-having ass won’t take anyone else’s word for it, maybe you’ll be more receptive to chadachada’s own words, which I quote below for your non-reading pleasure: 

    As far as armaments go…I don’t see why Blackwater can own all sorts of heavy weapons, but I couldn’t even if I had enough money. Fuck, if I had the money for a nuke I think I should be able to own it. Sure, that part is slightly insane to some, but I think the rest of my post still applies. Blackwater can own many off-the-wall high tech shit, but I, the common citizen, can’t?

    Is it now clear to you that he was suggesting something a bit more than people should be able to have things like ARs and M82A1s? Or is your head still firmly and securely ensconced up your ass?

  83. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    And I interpret it the opposite. That you should be able to keep and bear ANY arms.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  84. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    I wasn’t really thinking about F-16s and Abhram tanks and stuff…Those wouldn’t be very useful in the event of a revolution anyways. Annnddd…I think you should be able to own a tank. If you keep it on your own property. Same with all sorts of not-street-legal stuff. You can even drive your tank around on your yard! Just don’t take it off your property without the proper driving codes/licences. Like how people will drive ATV’s around in their backyards, just much much larger. If you can afford it. I don’t see why not.

    Glad to see I caused a real shitstorm in the comments section ^^

    I suppose you could own an F-16 also…but there aren’t many places you could fly it…hell, you could fly that like a normal private plane, sure.

    Notice, I’m not speaking of the armaments, only of the vehicles themselves. I don’t have a problem with vehicle ownership, if it’s in your own yard or if done like other vehicles of a similar class.

    As far as armaments go…I don’t see why Blackwater can own all sorts of heavy weapons, but I couldn’t even if I had enough money. Fuck, if I had the money for a nuke I think I should be able to own it. Sure, that part is slightly insane to some, but I think the rest of my post still applies. Blackwater can own many off-the-wall high tech shit, but I, the common citizen, can’t?

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  85. 0
    Arell says:

    In more ways than one.  On one hand, if you just want the AK-47 for hunting or personal protection, it would be unnecessarily overkill, and more dangerous than other alternatives.  On the other hand, if you’re a revolutionary fanatic hoping to overthrow government forces, an AK-47 would be largely useless in the long run against more powerful ordinances.

    There is litterally no use for owning an AK-47 in America, other than for shits and giggles.  Though, I suppose that reason enough for some people.

  86. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Common sense to you is nothing but an aborted fetus from that thing you call rationality.

    Why would you need an AK-47, as a civilian? Common sense says you would not.

  87. 0
    Arell says:

    And surely you’re a retard if you think civilians could effectively fight back against the military without them.  You say he’s just talking about guns?  Well, guns aren’t going to cut it against military ordinance.

    If you accept that the spirit of the 2nd Amendment was so that average citizens could act to protect themselves from government tyrany, and to keep those in charge in check, it’s counter-intuitive to ignore the fact that even machine guns would be ineffective against modern military resources.

    Just as Washington and Jefferson didn’t take into account issues like genetically modified crops, the internet, or stem cell research, they also didn’t consider tanks and bombers.  In a contemporary setting, the "wording" of the 2nd Amendment is incongruous with the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment.

    How can you type with your fingers in your ears?  Like I said, you’re being deliberately obtuse.

  88. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    If you believe for a minute that anyone is suggesting that your average jackass be able to have an M1A2, a Cobra, or any of the military’s many combat vehicles, then you’re a retard.  That may be the way you want to interpret it, but I doubt that’s what he meant.  There’s this thing called common sense; I suggest you find some.

  89. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    See, unlike yourself, I applied some common sense to the whole situation and what Chadachada was saying.  Surely, no one would suggest people have military armor and artillery.  Thus, it seems clear he was suggesting people should be able to have things like ARs and M82A1s.

  90. 0
    Arell says:

    The trick is to treat them like you’re trying to explain a new concept to a 10 year old for the very first time.  Don’t assume that they’re going to just understand what should be obvious.  An adult that would rather be deliberately obtuse to avoid actually talking about opposing viewpoints, is no different than a naive child.

  91. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Thank you for rendering that kind explanatory assistance to Dr. Lewis who, after so long relying on Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., to form conclusions for him, is now incapable of reading a piece of information and drawing an obvious conclusion on his own. I, just like you, concluded that chadachada’s post should be understood to mean that in order for the citizenry to defend itself from threat by the government, it must posses the same weaponry as the government. Everyone else who doesn’t spend all day with their head up their own ass would draw a similar conclusion.

  92. 0
    Arell says:

    I dunno, I think he may be suggesting that.  You really think the average jackass could fight off an Abrams tank or an Apache with a mere M16 rifle?  He’s talking about the ability for the citizenry to battle against the Military.  You think you can do that without some serious hardware?

    Your nitpicking over the technicalities is just that, nitpicking.  I doubt the founding fathers ever imagined choppers, artilery, missles, and tanks.

    Not that I’m even considering such things.  I think at this moment in time, people thinking about revolution and reestablishing the government are being overly dramatic.  Sour grapes because their ideology isn’t the majority concensus anymore.  Democracy is only fun when you’re on top, I suppose.

  93. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I’m sure it’s safe to assume that he’s not suggesting the average jackass be allowed access to M1A2 tanks, AH-64 Apaches, F-18’s of all variations, or M777s.  

  94. 0
    JDKJ says:

    What I do know is that I was responding to chadachada who claims an entitlement to the same WEAPONS as the MILITARY. That’s MILITARY WEAPONS. Not ARMS or ORDNANCE but MILITARY WEAPONS. MILITARY WEAPONS. MILITARY WEAPONS. MILITARY WEAPONS.


  95. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    "If we aren’t allowed to own the same weapons as the military, then we aren’t being provided with the same ability to defend ourselves from those that would infringe on our rights."

    You know what’s funny? Let’s read the Second Amendment.

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    It says you have the right to bear arms. It does not say you have the right to bear any and all arms. If you want to be really technical, you could consider a simple knife as an armament, ban all guns, and still have it apply under the Second Amendment, because it does not specific why kind of arms or how many.

  96. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    If we aren’t allowed to own the same weapons as the military, then we aren’t being provided with the same ability to defend ourselves from those that would infringe on our rights

    I fully support your right to have access to armaments on the level of the American Third Carrier Fleet. Hopefully the military will also give you access to training so that you can properly fly your very own F-35C attack jet.

  97. 0
    JDKJ says:

    If we aren’t allowed to own the same weapons as the military, then we aren’t being provided with the same ability to defend ourselves from those that would infringe on our rights.

    Would you like to start out by jumping straight to your very own nuclear warhead-tipped ballistic missile? Or perhaps a fully-armed Apache attack helicopter from which you can then work your way up to the bigger stuff?

  98. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    :: Beats Vets for (Anti) Freedom to the punch. ::

    OMG!  They’re rewriting history!

    OMG!  They’re killing US soldiers!

    OMG!  They’re encouraging kids to kill the President!

    OMG!  …


    Actually, sounds like an interesting "What If…" alternate reality game.  Yeah, it sounds pretty biased.  But… IT’S FICTION FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!  Sheesh!


    NW2K Software


    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  99. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    "preparing us for an American Theocratic Nazi state- all starting with George W. plotting the 9/11 attacks."

    Actually, I would like to correct you. It has been going on for much longer. Most agree the real start of the New Religious Right was actually the late Jerry Falwell’s group, the Moral Majority, which lasted for about a decade, starting in the late 1970s.

  100. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Lautenberg (D-NY) was making some interesting strides towards using that DHS list of ‘probable domestic terrorists’ to create some truly frightening legislation that would deny most rights to people placed on a ‘terrorist watch list’, who would never be informed that they were ON the list.

    Also, there’s a lot of fear that he may sign a treaty or pact with the UN or the OSA (or whatever the acronym is for all those South American countries) that would outlaw individual gun ownership.

  101. 0
    Zerodash says:

    Meh.  This is the same kind of kookery we saw the last 8 years when the left was preparing us for an American Theocratic Nazi state- all starting with George W. plotting the 9/11 attacks. 

    This game is based off of the same idiocy that we saw the last 8 years…only with the sources reversed. 

    People thinking Obama will outlaw legal gun ownership is about as rational as those who were insisting George W was going to reverse Roe vs Wade. 

  102. 0
    mentor07825 says:




    Took a look at the site, it definately looks shit. I would rather play the Political Machine, at least that is fun.

    Better yet, I’m going to play some of my favourite browser games, such as Quake Online and Faith Fighters!!

    "God, is that you?"
    "No! It’s a me, Mario!"

  103. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "Although, these same people believe in their hearts (without proof or even good reason) that the trails behind jets are actually "chemtrails" intentionally being laid down by the government for some nefarious purpose (a purpose they cannot describe)."

    Hah! Thats the first time I’ve heard that one.. Isn’t amazing how stupid some of these Anti-government zealouts can be??


    "It’s something to fear, even if they don’t even know what it is they supposed to be fearing."

    You just summed up the traditional Conservative, Limbaugh Loving, Hannity following, mouth-breathing, tea-bagging republican sheep in America.

  104. 0
    Arell says:

    One part "alternate reality" fiction, one part fear mongering propoganda.  We have this small but very vocal part of our society that’s trying to kick up some sort of social revolution based on the idea that "this isn’t the America I remember."  They have these romantic notions that the solution to all of our ills is either succession from the union, or violent overthrowing of the government.  This game has all the paranoia of the right wing zealotry (not the right wing itself, just the extremists).  Taking away our guns, annexing the rest of the Continent (oh noes, our tax dollars supporting Hispanics and Canadians!), destroying the Constitution.  To be frank, the assassination of Glenn Beck sounds like a fun fantasy.  What?  If they can take delight in hunting and probably killing Obama, I feel no guilt in the idea of a world blissfully without Beck.

    Sadly, I know people that would absolutely love this game.  Although, these same people believe in their hearts (without proof or even good reason) that the trails behind jets are actually "chemtrails" intentionally being laid down by the government for some nefarious purpose (a purpose they cannot describe).  It’s something to fear, even if they don’t even know what it is they supposed to be fearing.

    I’m even reminded of the Left Behind game a few years back.  Like how Anti Christ bases were set up in Universities and Professors were bad guys?  Yeah.

  105. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I would be fine with this, if it didn’t actually reference current political leaders that you are hunting down, and if it didn’t take itself nearly as seriously as it does… As it stands, it’s a pathetic conspiracy filled bag of stupidity that encourages hunting down and possibly killing our currently elected officials.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for political flash games. What I don’t support, on EITHER side, is the turning our current leaders into literal enemies of the state. I never supported any games that encouraged violence against that moron Bush, and I don’t support games that encourage violence against Obama, either. This game turns our nations elected leaders into literal enemies of the state, accusing them of treason and attempted national subjugation. It encourages players to build armies in order to oppose them and to engage in search and destroy style missions against them. It’s sickening and frightening, considering the amount of wingnuts out there who would give their life just to get an attempt to propagate violence against the current administration.

    I’m not saying this game is an "assassination simulator" or anything, I know better. It’s just sad that so many people get off on the idea of essentially destroying our elected leaders. Even worse, the game is spreading it’s insane conspiracies via it’s "Knowledge" section, which rewards players by answering "correctly" the questions about blatant lies and conspiracies like accusing Obama of killing his grandmother to win the election.

    The whole thing leaves a really, really bad taste in my mouth.

  106. 0
    gamepolitics says:

    Yeah, usage was a form of commentary.

    I will limit it’s use in the future so zombie tag searchers receive clean results.

    We retain the right to use the "WTF" tag as liberally as we like however.


  107. 0
    JDKJ says:

    What’s up with this new-found use for the "Zombies" tag? Historically, articles tagged "Zombies" contained a literal reference to zombies. This no longer – and somewhat confusingly – appears to be the case. Is the "Zombies" tag now being used as indicative of a reference to "loony assholes prancing around?" 

Leave a Reply