11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 11. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 25, 2013, 02:25 |
SmyTTor |
|
|
Let's not focus on his father being a violent gangbanger who found religion and made it obsession for living, yet still kept assault weapons and large quantities of ammunition easily accessible.
Yeah, religion never killed anyone. Neither did gang culture.
I bet the kid also played Mario Kart. Fucking psycho. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 24, 2013, 07:07 |
Agrajag |
|
|
Cutter wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 16:54:
ANYWAY back in reality, seems to me that that this kid in NM problems were based on a werido, strict religious family, not video games.
I'd like to see the general reaction if a member of Congress pushed a bill requiring warning labels on all religious books and teachings, and banning children under 17 from being exposed to anything deemed overly violent or obscene... Sure, it'd be unconstitutional; but, no more so than the bill here aimed at video games! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 23, 2013, 19:16 |
Saboth |
|
|
Oh noes...he played violent video games. So when do we expect the other 500 people in his school that also play violent video games to snap?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 23, 2013, 17:17 |
Frags4Fun |
|
|
| It boggles my mind when the media and politicians completely ignore the antidepressants and other medications that these killers are on. That's the real issue here, not the video games. Almost all the shooters in the past 2 decades have been on some form of psychological medication, yet the media completely ignores this FACT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 23, 2013, 17:02 |
jdreyer |
|
|
| So, one player out of approximately 20 million (in the US) or so goes on a rampage and kills. Even if games were at fault, most other pastimes result in more deaths. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 23, 2013, 16:54 |
Cutter |
|
|
Oh come on, you know if the democrats weren't responsible for all the world's evil it just wouldn't be worth living in for RT.
ANYWAY back in reality, seems to me that that this kid in NM problems were based on a werido, strict religious family, not video games. He looks like he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 23, 2013, 15:47 |
NegaDeath |
|
|
| Not to mention a quick trip to google shows Matheson is a blue dog conservative Democrat, he just barely hangs left of center. He's even been endorsed by the NRA. The world simply isn't black and white like some people want it to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 23, 2013, 15:33 |
nin |
|
|
So 5 Democrat-sponsored bills, 3 Republican-sponsored ones, and 7 co-sponsored on both sides of the aisle. So call it 55/45%.
Never let the facts get in the way of trollindunders lies...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RollinThundr Apr 17, 2013, 12:25: Eh really tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. If you really want to call that trolling sure.
Mr. Tact Apr 17, 2013, 12:33: Pretty sure that's the definition of trolling... |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 23, 2013, 15:31 |
Orogogus |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 11:52:
Why is it always democrats introducing bills to go after video games?
They should make a new slogan for the party, The DNC: Where personal responsibility is taboo. Or The DNC: It's always someone else's fault.
I don't think that's the case. They do tend to be Democrat sponsored, but I'd say it's no more than a 60/40 split.
A search turns up the following:
US HR231 2009 (warning labels) - D/R
US HR4204 2012 (warning labels) - D/R
US HR5990 2008 / HR287 2013 (restriction of sales to minors) - D
CA AB1792 & AB1793 2005 (labeling, restriction of sales to minors) - D
CA AB 1179 2005 (restriction of sales to minors) - D
IL HB4023 2005 (restriction of sales to minors) - D/R
LA HB1381 2006 (restriction of sales to minors) - D/R
MD HB707 2006 (restriction of sales to minors) - D/R
MI HB4702 SB416 2005 (restriction of sales to minors) - R
MN HF1298/SF785 2005 (restriction of sales to minors) - D/R
MO HB157 2013 (tax on violent video games) - R
OK HB3004 2006 (restriction of sales to minors) - R
UT HB353 2009 (restriction of sales to minors) - D/R
WA HB 1009 2003 (restriction of sales to minors) - D
WA HB2178 2005 (restriction of sales to minors) - D
So 5 Democrat-sponsored bills, 3 Republican-sponsored ones, and 7 co-sponsored on both sides of the aisle. So call it 55/45%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 23, 2013, 14:17 |
TurdFergasun |
|
|
| i don't know why anyone with half a brain considers either piece of the governing corporate duopoly to really be any different for actual policy direction. They both dance to the beat of multinational profiteering. Shake your fist at the companies that fund them, oh wait they don't have to disclose that much information directly, almost like it's a giant game designed to obfuscate the real and push the spin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Jan 23, 2013, 11:52 |
RollinThundr |
|
|
Why is it always democrats introducing bills to go after video games?
They should make a new slogan for the party, The DNC: Where personal responsibility is taboo. Or The DNC: It's always someone else's fault. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
