Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

No it isn't. You don't have a Constitutional right to RF spectrum. It wouldn't be possible to allow truly 'free' speech there.

A better analogy would be the internet. Does the FCC control what you say here?

No one has a consitutional right to RF, but they do have a constitutional right to say whatever they want once they have purchased spectrum.

What you're saying is the equivalent of "no one has a constitutional right to pen & paper" therefor the government can curtail freedom of speech in books.

[DivineLegion]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Funny that you don't think either arms or education are at all helpful to an insurgency. What exactly do these Afghani fighters have going for them? Do their balls hang super low?



I assume you're talking .223, but tell me, if there's no practicality, then why this?

http://www.14news.com/story/20608248...aw-enforcement

Their balls do indeed hand super low. They live hard lives with different values on life, and individuality. The same mentality that made the Japanese dangerous in the pacific theater. Americans don't posses that mentality as citizens, Texans maybe, but the largest population sources in the us are to diplomatic to crawl in tunnels.

I was referring to .223, I mistyped that on my phone.


Your article is in reference to an officer who is more than likely opperating in a tactical unit, not your average street cop. Yes, swat teams use paramilitary tactics, however their targets are often high risk, high threat criminals.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

No one has a consitutional right to RF, but they do have a constitutional right to say whatever they want once they have purchased spectrum.

What you're saying is the equivalent of "no one has a constitutional right to pen & paper" therefor the government can curtail freedom of speech in books.

It's amazing to me you can't spot the difference between use of public resources vs private resources for speech.

You're allowed under the first amendment to communicate whatever you want. You're not automatically allowed public resources to do so.

On a semirelated note... how about this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygree...print-at-home/

Should this "speech" be banished?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

It's amazing to me you can't spot the difference between use of public resources vs private resources for speech.

You're allowed under the first amendment to communicate whatever you want. You're not automatically allowed public resources to do so.

On a semirelated note... how about this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygree...print-at-home/

Should this "speech" be banished?

Total bull****. Now you're saying the government has the right to curtail someone's speech if they are doing it in a public park.

Wow you're an idiot.

[peacepipe]

Whatever,the fact of the matter is a conservative SC has ruled it can be regulated,

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Total bull****. Now you're saying the government has the right to curtail someone's speech if they are doing it in a public park.

Wow you're an idiot.

Don't you need a permit to hold a public rally?

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Our 1st amendment rights are regulated,FCC controls what can or cannot be said on TV,you can't yell fire in a movie theatre,so on & so on. With rights do come responsibilities. Supreme Court,more specificly your boy scalia ,ruled that the 2nd is not unlimited & can be regulated.

I guess government can curtail speech.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Our 1st amendment rights are regulated,FCC controls what can or cannot be said on TV,you can't yell fire in a movie theatre,so on & so on. With rights do come responsibilities. Supreme Court,more specificly your boy scalia ,ruled that the 2nd is not unlimited & can be regulated.

This is a half-truth. Note part of the ruling was that Washington DC was told to shove their total gun ban where the sun doesn't shine. They even had to chuck their trigger lock requirement.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

This is a half-truth. Note part of the ruling was that Washington DC was told to shove their total gun ban where the sun doesn't shine. They even had to chuck their trigger lock requirement.

e:

3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Aalso, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Total bull****. Now you're saying the government has the right to curtail someone's speech if they are doing it in a public park.

Wow you're an idiot.

Piss poor analogy. It'd be more like curtailing someone's speech thats taxpayer funded. RF frequencies aren't anything like a public park. They can't be shared in any useful sense.

And what does any of it have to do with what I'm allowed to own in the privacy of my own home? Or is it just another in an endless line of red herrings?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Piss poor analogy. It'd be more like curtailing someone's speech thats taxpayer funded. RF frequencies aren't anything like a public park. They can't be shared in any useful sense.

RF spectrum is leased to private entities via spectrum auctions. The taxpayer makes money off it and it is how RF is indeed "shared".

And what does any of it have to do with what I'm allowed to own in the privacy of my own home? Or is it just another in an endless line of red herrings?

That the FCC "regulates"* free speech on the free airwaves, or local governments regulate free speech in public parks speaks directly to the concept that no "right" is absolute. There is a limit to every "right". You can be required to get a permit for a rally, or enforce public disturbance laws if you grab a bullhorn and start yelling at people on a street corner or be prosecuted if you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

And by the way, the FCC does not limit its censorship based on "shared resources". It censors only things that are not subscriber based and thus cannot be easily controlled by consumers wishing to avoid it. Hence freely available television and radio channels are subject to FCC censorship, but cable and satellite (which uses open air RF spectrum just like terrestrial broadcats) are not. That's why all the "adult" material is generally only available under subscriber based services like HBO and SiriusXM.

Additionally, the FCC cannot actually prevent any broadcaster from broadcasting whatever legal material they want (basically anything that is not deemed "obscene"). They have only been given the authority to slap people on the wrist when "indecent" material (read: sex and dirty language) is broadcast outside of the "acceptable" times. There's absolutely no reason a free over-the-air channel can't play soft core porn, just like Skinimax, as long as they don't do it between 6AM and 10PM.

Saying the government can't regulate anything you do in your own home is ridiculous. The idea of private ownership with regards to "rights" has to do with differentiating between what the government is limited by vs what a non-goverment entity is limited by. The government has to respect your right to free speech, but a private entity doesn't. In other words, the government must respect free speech, even on public airwaves, but the private entities using that spectrum don't have to.


Of course, the common theme here is that _your_ rights end where mine begin -- it has nothing to do with "what you are allowed to own in the privacy of your own home".

* Your right to broadcast porn or other adult content ends where it becomes too easy for my children to view it in the circumstance that I don't want them to.

* Your right to your religious belief ends when you attempt to force those beliefs on others.

Likewise, your right to posses firearms ends when you cross the line from sportsmen activities and self defense into offensive capability -- something even the NRA agrees with which is why anything "on the bubble" they try their darndest to frame as a "sportsmen's weapon" or a "self defense" weapon. That's what leads to idiocy like people claiming an AR-15, Mini-14 or other similar rifle is a legitimate "hunting weapon" and why the NRA puts out bullsh*t adds claiming people wanting those types of weapons bans are 'going after sportsmen'!

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

RF spectrum is leased to private entities via spectrum auctions. The taxpayer makes money off it and it is how RF is indeed "shared".



That the FCC "regulates"* free speech on the free airwaves, or local governments regulate free speech in public parks speaks directly to the concept that no "right" is absolute. There is a limit to every "right". You can be required to get a permit for a rally, or enforce public disturbance laws if you grab a bullhorn and start yelling at people on a street corner or be prosecuted if you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

And by the way, the FCC does not limit its censorship based on "shared resources". It censors only things that are not subscriber based and thus cannot be easily controlled by consumers wishing to avoid it. Hence freely available television and radio channels are subject to FCC censorship, but cable and satellite (which uses open air RF spectrum just like terrestrial broadcats) are not. That's why all the "adult" material is generally only available under subscriber based services like HBO and SiriusXM.

Additionally, the FCC cannot actually prevent any broadcaster from broadcasting whatever legal material they want (basically anything that is not deemed "obscene"). They have only been given the authority to slap people on the wrist when "indecent" material (read: sex and dirty language) is broadcast outside of the "acceptable" times. There's absolutely no reason a free over-the-air channel can't play soft core porn, just like Skinimax, as long as they don't do it between 6AM and 10PM.

Saying the government can't regulate anything you do in your own home is ridiculous. The idea of private ownership with regards to "rights" has to do with differentiating between what the government is limited by vs what a non-goverment entity is limited by. The government has to respect your right to free speech, but a private entity doesn't. In other words, the government must respect free speech, even on public airwaves, but the private entities using that spectrum don't have to.


Of course, the common theme here is that _your_ rights end where mine begin -- it has nothing to do with "what you are allowed to own in the privacy of your own home".

* Your right to broadcast porn or other adult content ends where it becomes too easy for my children to view it in the circumstance that I don't want them to.

* Your right to your religious belief ends when you attempt to force those beliefs on others.

Likewise, your right to posses firearms ends when you cross the line from sportsmen activities and self defense into offensive capability -- something even the NRA agrees with which is why anything "on the bubble" they try their darndest to frame as a "sportsmen's weapon" or a "self defense" weapon. That's what leads to idiocy like people claiming an AR-15, Mini-14 or other similar rifle is a legitimate "hunting weapon" and why the NRA puts out bullsh*t adds claiming people wanting those types of weapons bans are 'going after sportsmen'!

Wow that's a lot of typing to keep going down a piss poor rabbit trail you created. So which public park have you gone to where when you go there you lease a chunk of it where from that point forward nobody else is allowed to use?

And if the mechanism is all about truly policing speech (instead of controlling allocation of very limited resources) why does the FCC do nothing to control what's posted on the internet?

[Elway 4 Life]

This whole gun arguement is getting so far out of hand. People are fighting about the wrong issues. Let's take the last 3 big gun violence incidents. The Aurora, Sandy Hook, and AZ congresswoman all had one thing in common, the shooters were absolutely bananas. This is more of an issue in my eyes. The parents should have never had weapons of any kind unlocked and readily available. Everyone in there lives should have practiced much better SA.

I live in Killeen, TX. which is right next to Ft Hood the largest military installation in the free world and see the effects of mental issues daily. Hell with gun laws we need to get a better grasp on the mental issues that are rampant in this country. PTSD is a huge issue with soldiers coming back and there is currently nothing being done to get these guys help. This administration needs to attack this issue with the ferocity that its attacking guns.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Elway 4 Life

This whole gun arguement is getting so far out of hand. People are fighting about the wrong issues. Let's take the last 3 big gun violence incidents. The Aurora, Sandy Hook, and AZ congresswoman all had one thing in common, the shooters were absolutely bananas. This is more of an issue in my eyes. The parents should have never had weapons of any kind unlocked and readily available. Everyone in there lives should have practiced much better SA.

I live in Killeen, TX. which is right next to Ft Hood the largest military installation in the free world and see the effects of mental issues daily. Hell with gun laws we need to get a better grasp on the mental issues that are rampant in this country. PTSD is a huge issue with soldiers coming back and there is currently nothing being done to get these guys help. This administration needs to attack this issue with the ferocity that its attacking guns.

They are looking into it,it is part of the 23 executive actions that he signed. Universal background checks would address a lot of what you're saying. Does no good to strengthen laws regarding the mentally Ill if they can just go to a gun show & by a gun without a BG check.

[Elway 4 Life]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

They are looking into it,it is part of the 23 executive actions that he signed. Universal background checks would address a lot of what you're saying. Does no good to strengthen laws regarding the mentally Ill if they can just go to a gun show & by a gun without a BG check.

I'm not talking strengthening the laws for the mentally ill, I'm talking about getting the mentally ill more help. My wife and I have a good friend who works for the MHMR (Mentally Handicapped Mentally Retarded) here in Killeen and was told that in April they are closing it down because the funding has been cut. Now there is only going to be 2 MHMR within a 4 county radius which encompasses approximately 1.3 million people. That's 31 employees to cover 1.3 million. 3 offices are closing total in those 4 counties. That's the issue not gun laws or laws regarding mental issues.

Just so I'm clear I support background checks and a ban on these ridiculously huge ammo clips. I can go either way on a ban of AR's but that's about it.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

They are looking into it,it is part of the 23 executive actions that he signed. Universal background checks would address a lot of what you're saying. Does no good to strengthen laws regarding the mentally Ill if they can just go to a gun show & by a gun without a BG check.

Of course if there's no federal record of a person being mentally ill, there's not much point in doing a background check at all. But it gives politicians something to mug in front of the camera about. And their favorite voters a way to feel like 0+0 equals 1.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Of course if there's no federal record of a person being mentally ill, there's not much point in doing a background check at all. But it gives politicians something to mug in front of the camera about. And their favorite voters a way to feel like 0+0 equals 1.

There's always a point in doing a BG check. Just cause the fed may or may not have a record of who has been ruled mentally I'll doesn't mean there shouldn't be universal BG checks.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

There's always a point in doing a BG check. Just cause the fed may or may not have a record of who has been ruled mentally I'll doesn't mean there shouldn't be universal BG checks.

See this is what people are talking about when they talk about the naked opportunism. Our politicians seize on a tragedy to start crafting things they way they had already predetermined before the event ever happened. Even if there's zero evidence that their personal preference would've done a single thing to prevent the tragedy they're marketing. It's like they're just waiting for something bad to happen so they can use it as a tool to their own ends.

Would the checks have stopped either the Aurora or Sandy Hook shooters? I'm sorry, but if some crackpot like that can walk into a store and buy a gun, background check and all, it seems like a pretty fruitless exercise to force every used gun sale between grandpa and dad to go through a background check.

At the end of the day, this is all it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

[Meck77]

I think this! I think that!

There are 300+ Million Americans! What is "right" for you might not be right for someone else.

How about this?! Let's let the voters in each STATE decide their own laws! If you like your guns move to AZ or WY!

If you like tight guns laws move to that state! Just be prepared to wait for a "good guy with the a gun" to save your ass if you find yourself in trouble!

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

See this is what people are talking about when they talk about the naked opportunism. Our politicians seize on a tragedy to start crafting things they way they had already predetermined before the event ever happened. Even if there's zero evidence that their personal preference would've done a single thing to prevent the tragedy they're marketing. It's like they're just waiting for something bad to happen so they can use it as a tool to their own ends.

Would the checks have stopped either the Aurora or Sandy Hook shooters? I'm sorry, but if some crackpot like that can walk into a store and buy a gun, background check and all, it seems like a pretty fruitless exercise to force every used gun sale between grandpa and dad to go through a background check.

At the end of the day, this is all it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

Obama said in his announcement that there is no perfect solution, but just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean that you just sit on your thumbs & do nothing.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Obama said in his announcement that there is no perfect solution, but just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean that you just sit on your thumbs & do nothing.

Allowing States to decide is doing something. The people in DC are not in touch with ALL of America.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

just sit on your thumbs & do nothing

No, we mustn't do nothing. Until bad things cease to be, we must DO SOMETHING!

How about cars that can't violate the speed limit? That'd save more lives than background checks. Do Something?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

No, we mustn't do nothing. Until bad things cease to be, we must DO SOMETHING!

How about cars that can't violate the speed limit? That'd save more lives than background checks. Do Something?

It's well worth it if it just save one life. You somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of guns sold with no background check via internet or gun shows. Background checks don't stop law abiding citizens from getting a gun.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

It's well worth it if it just save one life.

What a crock. I hear them using this one more and more.

Let's get rid of baseball bats then (most commonly used weapon). Who needs baseball! Millions of kids can find something else to do. It's worth it if it saves one life right?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Meck77

What a crock. I hear them using this one more and more.

Let's get rid of baseball bats then (most commonly used weapon). Who needs baseball! Millions of kids can find something else to do. It's worth it if it saves one life right?

Bull****, common sense seems to be something you don't grasp. Background checks don't stop law abiding citizens from getting a gun.