"The pro-firearms website JPFO took a Bullet Bill, an enemy from the Super Mario games, painted it gold with red eyes, and used it without permission for their cause."
Well at least someone is doing something possative with Nintendo's intullectual properties :D
Lol, advocating the use of things that can kill being called "positive" is hilarious.
Alright then, I suppose I should be anti-kitchen-knife, too. And anti-baseball-bat. And anti-printer. And anti-desk. And anti-wood. And anti-pillow. You realize pretty much anything ever to kill people, right? And being anti-gun is basically saying, "Let's take guns away from the good guys and let the outlaws use guns to scare them!" Ask Australia how gun control worked out. Lemme give you a hint: The criminals will be giving the votes to the politicians that were advocates of gun control. They made their lives so much easier for them.
Lol, using flawed logic to advocate the use of things that can kill being called "positive" is far more hilarious. Do you know what the difference is between a thing that CAN kill and a thing that was DESIGNED to kill is? Where in my comment did I say anything about taking guns away at all btw?
@DragonKnight AedanClarke must be of the mentality 'if you're not with us 100%, you're against us 100%.' Guns are manufactured and designed with the intent to kill other things. All of those other things you listed have other legitimate purposes. A weapon is anything that can be used as a weapon, but a gun is nothing other than a weapon - it has no other purpose. You can call it a defensive tool all you like, but its 'defense' comes from having a good offense. FWIW, I'm an advocate for responsible gun ownership, but I'm not blind to what a gun is and what it does.
@jeeves86: Yeah, I've found that many pro-gun individuals can be as zealous as the most fundamentalist religious person or pretty much any special interest group. You can't even hint at an opposing view without attack mode engaging. That's fine. I live in Canada where the rules about guns are that handguns are illegal but hunting rifles and shotguns aren't and we aren't a den of iniquity and crime despite having much harsher rules about gun ownership than the U.S. The thing I hate about Canada though is that it's illegal to own nunchuks. Frickin' nunchucks. *sigh* Governments.
@Aedan: yes, please go ask australia how gun control worked out... shootings and violent crime went down.
@ aedanclarke & xander70769:
The wing-nuts are in full swing, I see. The old "anything can be a weapon" from the right corner and "guns are made to keel so they are bad!" from the left corner.
"AedanClarke must be of the mentality 'if you're not with us 100%, you're against us 100%.'" Bang on! It's embarrassing watching the Republicans veto everything. http://www.huffingtonpost.c... They can't even get assault weapons banned.
@MikeMyers You realize I'm not a Republican, right?
AedanClarke, I didn't say you were. Sorry if I implied that. However your comments suggest that you share that same mentality. I don't think anyone would go to a theater dressed up as the Joker and people running for their lives because he's carrying a pillow. There's no reason to have those types of guns period. They are designed for a purpose and can kill a lot of people quickly. A crowd can defend themselves against a printer. That was terrible logic.
This has to be a joke. A group called, "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" stole an character design but made it gold with a banner saying a different name. I mean, do I even have to explain why this is wrong?
yo man no offense but for a guy using a word like intellectual, you didn't nail it. IT'S INTELLECTUAL, not INTULLECTUAL, and its POSITIVE,not POSSATIVE. :()
The use of "things that can kill" is why America exists, and is also why we aren't all speaking German, and Jews aren't all exterminated. In a world where people murder, rape, and steal; where governments and their armies attempt genocide, "things that can kill" are necessary. We don't have to like it, I sure don't, but putting our head in the sand doesn't make that fact any less true.
Yay, more flawed logic. I thought America existed because Puritans left England and colonized the area now known as America. Hmm, I guess I'm wrong. I love how people will justify death as a necessity and then wonder why the world is messed up. Lol.
So the American revolution had nothing to do with America's founding. And I have flawed logic...
I merely circumvented your reasoning by pointing out that there's a difference between the existence of a nation and it's independence. You have flawed logic because you make the case that the only reason America exists is because of guns.
" I thought America existed because Puritans left England and colonized the area now known as America" Yes sir, you were wrong. That was only a part of it. The main part is that American took the country from England, by guess what, using guns to defend the lands. Idk google American Revolutionary War with England. *spoiler alert* it wasn't fought with books or pencils. Not so coincidentially we have the 4th of July which is celebrated using explosions. Next time pay attention in school. kkthanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
hellvaguy: Once again, you're missing the difference between the existence of a nation, and it gaining independence. The country known as America was never known as the United States of Britain, or the Colony of Britain or anything like that. You also forget every other reason America exists and just relegate it to "we won the Revolution with guns. HELL YEAH GUNS!" Guess it's easy to use one part of history to prop up an agenda, but not looking at the whole picture just makes you look foolish.
Cause f*** the natives right?
Who said anything about the natives? I'm not claiming America is perfect, or doesn't have terrible history. Between the killing of the natives, slavery, and several civil rights violations for minority groups, America certainly has her dark sides. We've come a long way, however, and continue to work towards doing better. This has nothing to do with the fact that guns are a necessity. The natives would have been justified to defend themselves and their land, and it's a shame they didn't have the means to do so against an enemy that had them out-gunned. But the past is the past, we can only be responsible for ourselves and the future we work towards building, not for the crimes of our distant ancestors. Not all gun advocates are gun loving lunatics. I know there are a lot of idiot gun owners out there, and that some gun advocacy groups come off as over-the-top rhetoric. But it does not change the fact that there are people and forces out there who would cause any of you harm if given the opportunity. I believe it is our right to have the means to defend ourselves, even with lethal force when absolutely necessary. If you are not comfortable with guns, you don't have to own one. But an unarmed person is easier to murder, rape, or rob than an armed one. An unarmed population is easier to invade, genocide or enslave than an armed one, and that is why the 2nd amendment exists. Even if you believe you are safe, that the government has your best interests at heart, you can never be sure that will be the case years or decades from now. Giving up your arms is not going to encourage bad people to give up theirs, it will only encourage them to do as they please to you. I always advocate diplomacy and peaceful solutions first, but where they fail violent resistance should never be taken off the table.
I'm stunned at how many fellow gamers are apparently supportive of blatant copyright infringement used in the service of a morally indefensible industry. Both of these things are inexcusable.
" morally indefensible industry" When a criminal(s) breaks into your house, overpowers you, and rapes your wife and children, you can enjoy that scene by yourself. http://www.nypost.com/p/new... Break into my house, and said criminal will have holes in them and society is a better place for it. IMO, it's morally indefensible to be such a coward to not equip yourself to defend your own family at home. Now with that said, I don't feel civilian's should have the right to own military type weapons like bazooka's , grenade launchers, nukes, or anything ridiculous like that.
Quite a gun control debate going on in here...might as well add my two cents. I'm an advocate for stronger gun control, but not total gun control. People advocating that the common man needs access to assault weapons with high capacity magazines is ludicrous, but people advocating for the total removal of gun are equally crazy. Gun control works in certain countries because of how the culture works, for example, gun control works in England because the English don't have any real sense of cultural identity tied to the firearm. They also have an incredibly low crime rate, so there's little need for guns for self defense. On the American end it's a complete 180, America has from it's inception had some association with the gun, (American Revolution and all) hell in the south and the west ownership of a gun can be considered one of the cornerstones of the American identity. America also has a correspondingly high crime rate, one of the highest in the developed world. You're never going to achieve the level of gun control in America that you find in England, the culture is too directly tied to the gun, but this may not be a bad thing. Examining statistics within the U.S. when we examine the two most populous states, Texas and California, known for having extremely lax gun laws and extremely strict gun laws respectively, we find that Texas actually has the lower crime rates (As taken from numbers from the FBI and United Nations). In closing...there is no stock answer for gun control...you can look at the statistics till your eyes cross and you'll still be left wanting for answers. In my opinion in America we must first change the way the gun is viewed, not as a symbol of power and masculinity, but as the ultimate responsibility. On Topic: That's kinda funny but it's clearly a copyright violation, so they'll likely take it down when Nintendo discovers it, otherwise they're in for some serious litigation.
First Yoshi appears in an app game now this. Lmao
This is so hypocritical, the other day people on here were almost praising ea for no longer planning to purchase licenses for guns and simply just use there names / likeness' anyway until someone takes the to court. But when it's the other way round? Oh no that's just fucking too much. It just make video gamers look like idiots...
*insert long wall of text describing an extreme view on gun control here
Who thought this was a good idea? Nintendo is from Japan, where even holding a handgun is illegal to the average citizen. Do they really think Nintendo would let them use it's likeness for pro gun lobbying? On the actual subject of gun control, this is the internet discussing a thorny issue so anything I saw is probably going to be buried by bile from both sides in short order, so I'll keep it short. To anyone who believes you should be able to buy a gun at a gun show or over the internet without any background checks, I am severely disappointed with you.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.