Banning Online Gaming Dangerous Precedent for Online Gun Sales
There is an ongoing push in Congress to ban the ability of states to legalize Internet gaming. Rumors are swirling in Congress of an end of the year deal that will impose a short-term gaming ban; they are calling it a “moratorium and study,” that, if passed, will violate the 10th Amendment to the Constitution as much as a permanent one.
As a supporter of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, I must ask, can an Internet ban on the sale of firearms be far behind?
Michael Hammond, the General Counsel of Gun Owners of America, has noted that a gaming ban potentially opens the door for further meddling with Internet freedom. Hammond believes if the federal government can cherry pick what can be sold online and can override state laws, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has demanded action on this front since 1999, will again push for the banning of gun sales online and Republicans won’t have a philosophical leg to stand on to fight against it.
The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct and liberals should respect the right of the people to govern themselves in the states. Political correctness has no business dictating what parts of the Constitution our federal government follows and ignores.
On some politically correct college campuses, Voltaire’s fight for the idea that, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” may seem quaint and outdated. Liberals will only fight for ideas that they deem acceptable. Thankfully, most average Americans still cherish and agree with tolerance of others to believe differently.
Freedom of speech isn’t about consensus; it’s about liberty. The First Amendment to the Constitution incorporates this belief by affording Americans freedom of speech without caveats or exceptions. When you think of it, the same principles should apply to other sections of the Bill of Rights, particularly the 10th Amendment.
sure people don't come in for a dollar scratcher, they wont be buying a soda and a bag of chips
There is an ongoing push in Congress to ban the ability of states to legalize Internet gaming. Rumors are swirling in Congress of an end of the year deal that will impose a short-term gaming ban; they are calling it a “moratorium and study,” that, if passed, will violate the 10th Amendment to the Constitution as much as a permanent one.
As a supporter of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, I must ask, can an Internet ban on the sale of firearms be far behind?
Michael Hammond, the General Counsel of Gun Owners of America, has noted that a gaming ban potentially opens the door for further meddling with Internet freedom. Hammond believes if the federal government can cherry pick what can be sold online and can override state laws, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has demanded action on this front since 1999, will again push for the banning of gun sales online and Republicans won’t have a philosophical leg to stand on to fight against it.
The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct and liberals should respect the right of the people to govern themselves in the states. Political correctness has no business dictating what parts of the Constitution our federal government follows and ignores.
On some politically correct college campuses, Voltaire’s fight for the idea that, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” may seem quaint and outdated. Liberals will only fight for ideas that they deem acceptable. Thankfully, most average Americans still cherish and agree with tolerance of others to believe differently.
Freedom of speech isn’t about consensus; it’s about liberty. The First Amendment to the Constitution incorporates this belief by affording Americans freedom of speech without caveats or exceptions. When you think of it, the same principles should apply to other sections of the Bill of Rights, particularly the 10th Amendment.
The Convenience Store Lobby Suddenly Trying To Ban Online Gaming
The “Restoration of America’s Wire Act” (RAWA) would rewrite the decades-old Wire Act to ban online gaming. It would also make a number of states’ online lottery games illegal. In the past, Sheldon Adelson said he was “willing to spend whatever it takes” to pass RAWA. He even dispatched his lobbyist Darryl Nirenberg – then of Patton Boggs – to write the bill.
But Adelson has since retreated into the shadows of the debate over banning online gaming. One potential reason for his retreat is that Adelson’s casinos were fined for underage gambling. This is a problem for the anti-online gaming crowd because their biggest argument is that online games aren’t secure against underage patrons:
Do six figures in fines for underage gamblers getting into his casino in Pennsylvania show Sheldon Adelson’s hypocrisy or buttress his case against full-blown online gaming?
[. . .]
His enemies have discovered $220,000 in fines at Sands Bethlehem since 2010.
[. . .]
Because Adelson has argued underage gamblers will easily be able to access online gaming sites, his foes have pounced on this information to accuse him of hypocrisy. One casino executive succinctly put it this way: “Glass houses and all.”
sure people don't come in for a dollar scratcher, they wont be buying a soda and a bag of chips