TheMightyEthan

Yeah, Nintendo could do just fine targeting WiiU at the core and having the games to back it up. What I don't think will happen is anywhere near the same kind of success with the casuals that they had with the Wii.

Yep. Which all contributes to why banning guns isn't going to happen. That doesn't mean it's not what should happen.

Exactly. I haven't been arguing against that, I've been pointing out why it's unlikely to happen.

@Dean: There have been a few cases of someone with a valid concealed-carry license using their gun to stop a crime, but it's a lot less common than someone using their legally owned/carried gun to commit a crime. That's from a societal perspective though, and I can definitely understand the individual outlook that if I have a gun I can use it to protect myself and others should the need arise, even though when everyone thinks that it leads to bad things for society overall. It's kind of like the prisoner's dilemma but with millions of people instead of just 2.

Sure someone who really wants to kill another person will find a way, but what about the person who, in a moment of rage, pulls out a gun from under their seat and shoots the guy who just cut him off on the road? If he didn't already have that gun sitting there odds are he'd just get really mad, maybe yell and scream about it, but in the end nobody would be dead.

I definitely agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the thing is guns make it a hell of a lot easier.

I don't see the "casual" market being anywhere like as big next gen as they were this gen. How do you convince Grandma to buy a WiiU when she already has a Wii?

Yeah, I like Galaxy 1&2 and Skyward Sword a lot.

I agree with the part about Bane, As for the rope

That's the kind of thing I would normally find a bit ott, but like you said it's a good tension builder there. And they really do always sing that before sporting events.

Oh god, fuck audiences. At the scene where there was this girl behind me who was trying not to laugh about some shit she and her friend had been doing, but she was breathing so loud and hard that I couldn't hear half the dialogue in the scene, completely ruining it. Probably the worst time in the entire movie for that to happen.

If it makes you feel any better I think the Kinect was a waste of money. The Wii I got for free from my brother in law because he never used it. *Edit* - I'm also inclined to say the Move was a waste of money, though I did really enjoy playing Infamous 2 with it, even with the constant need to recalibrate.

Got a new TV stand for the main room, now that area looks much nicer.

I don't get it...

Basically I just wanted something big enough to hold my headphones and a couple games, which this does quite nicely.

I have that exact same case. It's really nice. My only complaint is that the grips I bought don't fit in it, but that's hardly the case's fault.

Judges use legislative intent here as well, but in the case of the constitution it's 200 years old and there aren't good records of the debate surrounding its drafting, not to mention the fact that with so many people involved in its creation (the Congress plus the legislatures of all the states) there's no one legislative intent behind it. Basically the amendment proscribes certain government conduct, and the fact that it gives a reason for doing so might be relevant in a borderline case but it doesn't change what conduct is proscribed. The government cannot infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. The protection may be especially strong in the case of a "well-regulated militia" because that's at the core of the purpose of the amendment, but it applies to everyone. Regarding your example, there's actually a rule of statutory construction in the US that if the legislature lists things then only the things in the list are covered unless it's specifically noted that they're only examples. So while "the manufacture of knives and forks is hereby banned" wouldn't cover spoons, "the manufacture of eating utensils, such as knives and forks" probably would.

Well you'll have to take that up with the last 200 years of judicial precedent.

Yes, the militia part is written down, but the right to keep and bear arms is not conditioned on it. They basically said "Because we want to be able to raise a militia if necessary to protect the state, the government cannot prohibit people from having or carrying weapons." It doesn't say they can't prohibit people from having or carrying them for the purpose of the militia, it just says they can't prohibit people from having or carrying them full stop.

Agreed, but that's not what's written.

This. I thought they did a terribly job with making it seem that time was passing.

Damn, for some reason I was thinking it was like the Super Bowl and rotated through the networks, and that ABC had it this year. Oh well.

But there's nothing in it that conditions the second half of the amendment on the first. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." in absolute terms. It doesn't say "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," or "the right of the states to maintain an armed militia shall not be infringed", though that would arguably make a lot more sense. Maybe it's a facet of American legal interpretation as compared to British, but generally speaking one part of a law is not conditioned on another unless it's made explicit that it is supposed to be conditioned on it. I just can't see any other reading of it that makes sense other than that it protects an individual right to possess and carry weapons, regardless of why they wanted to protect that right.

I was really glad that in AC they didn't That really grated on me in AA.

Most new comedies in general fail, British imports or not.