Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites
cluge writes "A recent American Rifleman contained small column that said that Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites. Being the eternal skeptic, this claim was tested by downloading the trial version and running some tests against it. To my surprise I found the every NRA site was blocked and was in the category 'weapons.' This even included the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. Some sites that were not blocked were notable anti-gun rights sites such as The Brady Campaign, and Good Bye Guns. The only anti-gun rights site that was blocked that I could find was Hand Gun Control's web site." Read on for more.
cluge continues: "My rather informal test still raises the spectre that a large corporate entity may be clandestinely trying to sway you or your child's political views by censoring content from one side of a political debate. This is indeed chilling, especially considering that such software is required to be used in libraries to protect children. Is this political slant common in censorware? Have slashdotters found similar glitches in other 'parental control' software?"
Slashdot has certainly covered censorware before, but reports like this are still valuable as the world evolves.
Read on for more.
Not much more.
nuff said
It is certainly not too late to outlaw handguns. I think the bigger problem is that people think they need a gun in the first place. If guns were banned today, would we be having conversations like this in 20 years? Or would the gun culture have died down a bit? I am not optimistic that things would be just rosy a few years down the road, but I think that banning the guns is better than not doing anything about the problem. What's the alternative? Gun education? Criminals don't go to class. Registration? Criminals won't register. Nothing short of an outright ban will do any good.
:-) I think there is a lot to gain from banning guns, but there is even more to lose by not banning them.
Look at it this way. Citizens haven't been able to legally purchase assault rifles for a while, but criminals still have them. But how often do you hear of a robber breaking into a house with an AK-47? If the guns are banned it will become too expensive for the criminals that could potentially affect our lives to import from another country. Not too many crackheads will be flying to Mexico to get a gun, and so they would eventually become viable only to those with money, ie. big time dealers or something like that. Those people don't have a direct impact on people's lives, but rather act through others.
I know this is really REALLY idealized, but I am just typing whatever runs into my head
As you probably noticed, I think that whole "I need a gun for my house" thing is bullshit. Maybe if I get robbed at gunpoint someday my opinion will change? I hope not and I don't think it will, but who knows for sure.
>Oh, and there's the interesting little subject of decompression to deal with...
You watch too much TV. Planes don't explosivly decompress when a bullet is shot through through the skin.
From www.keepandbeararms.com - MYTH #1 Cabin depressurization will occur if a firearm is discharged on an airplane.
3) Even if you put a common handgun bullet through the side of an airplane -- pick your caliber, any of them -- it will not depressurize a cabin measurably. And what small amount of leakage would occur could be plugged with any number of things within reach of your seat, including a small portion of the tiny pillows and baby blankets you are given by flight attendants. But don't take it from me; listen to two Licensed Aircraft Engineers, one of whom is a Lead Technician for a major airline:
"On the overall question: 'Is shooting hijackers on aircraft an appropriate thing to do considering the risk of damaging the operational integrity of the aircraft,' the answer is 'Hell Yes.' I've been a licensed aircraft mechanic for over 20 years, and I am the Lead Technician for a Major Airline. I know aircraft. It's pretty tough to down a transport category aircraft with small arms fire. Boeing's 737s, 757s and the rest are very much like bulldozers with wings on them in that regard." -- Dan Todd, Licensed Aircraft Engineer for 20 years, Lead Technician for a Major Airline
"One or even several bullets puncturing the pressure cabin wall would be hardly noticeable and the aircraft's pressurization control would easily cope with the slight loss of air. The likelihood of a single bullet causing a massive structural failure is so remote as to be insignificant." -- David M., Licensed Aircraft Engineer
Oh... dear... God... this is something like the Holy Grail of stupid posts!
For instance, you can teach, or talk about, any religion in school except Christianity.
What the Hell are you talking about? I just looked in two different High School History texts and there are chapters on Christianity in both of them along with several other religions. And, besides, you can't TEACH any religion in a public school. You CAN, however, teach the HISTORY of any religion, which they do. I was taught about Christianity in various contexts in AP European History, World History, and American History. I also read a lot of Christian works in British Literature my senior year. You obviously haven't got a clue.
Get one thing straight you left-wing twit. Guns don't kill people! People kill people!
Guns don't kill people, I kill people. If you can't argue in anything more than soundbites, maybe you just shouldn't say anything. Leave it up to people who actually have some insight into the position you hold rather than just feel strongly about it without understanding why. GUNS fire BULLETS which cause TRAUMA in people who DIE. GUNS are FIRED by PEOPLE. Therefore, PEOPLE firing GUNS kill PEOPLE. Therefore, PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE. Amusingly, this holds true to varying degrees with other weapons such as blades, clubs, and power tools. Of course, unlike, say, automatic weapons, for example, these other items have legitimate, constructive uses. Since an AK-47 is meant only to kill, and it is not required to kill game, it has no legitimate use. Soooo.. why bother letting people get it. Logically, shouldn't the only people who want it be the people who want to arbitrarily kill things with it (it's a rhetorical question son, I'm making a point - don't waste your time answering becuase you'll be arguing the wrong subject)? Oh yea, and did I mention that anyone who arbitrarily throws out "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative", etc. as an insult is obviously a complete and total stammering moron?
The ACLU is only denying Americans their right to defend themselves from their own government and others. One of the principal reasons that the 2nd Amendment was added was to prevent abuses of the government the founders had experienced in Europe.
Yes, since YOU were PERSONALLY PRESENT when it was written, I'm sure you somehow have a MUCH greater understanding of an issue that has been wrestled with for ages than all of the people who have devoted their entire lives to understanding this sort of thing. Uh huh. Should I just bow before your all-knowing presence now, or can I wait until your powerful intellect takes us over subliminally?
And, as a wrap up: I'm not arguing with you because I'm pro-gun or anti-gun. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about the issue. I'm arguing with you because you made an idiotic post about an issue you obviously don't understand yet feel passionately about.
Ahhhh... that felt good.
BTW - I love the site you link to. Two broken links before I finally got onto it, then a flash intro (no flash plugin) before I get to some half-assed propaganda site that has more half-truths, emotional appeals, and warped statistics than I can count on every finger and toe in this house.
Maybe if you stopped gleaning all of your "information" from one-sided sources that simply fuel your biased, but obviously uninformed, opinion, you'd actually be capable of arguing your position instead of coming off as some fringe lunatic pushing a looney tunes agenda.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!