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.
I will never buy another Symantec product again, if this is true. I don't care whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun, this is wrong. Can anyone recommend a good non-symantec antivirus and software firewall? (Please, please, please don't say ZoneAlarm.)
The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
Whatever happened to 'I disagree with what you say, but will defend to death your Right to say it'?
But does it say yes to anti-gun sites?
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
I have mixed emotions about this. I dislike the NRA, and I am even creating a DooM 3 mod, lampooning them.
But they have a right to free speech.
deserves to be shot.
It has been my experience that ultimately, a decision that affects a great deal of people or one person is usually made by ONE person.
Who would that be at Symantec? I wonder if the software blocks porn and anti-gun sites as well?
This guy is way out there
Think about it: NRA and other gun sites are about how to find weapons and use them. Anti Gun sites arent, in fact they discourage their use. what theyre trying to block is not the advocacy of gun rights, its the advocacy of GUNS THEMSELVES.
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
Don't use Symantec Internet Security 2004. It's not a violation of anyone's rights unless it's mandated by the government.
...here comes another +1000-comment pro-gun/anti-gun flamewar :(
Kerio is great. I hate ZoneAlarm, loved AtGuard (which eventually became Norton's firewall) but got sick of the Norton bloat.
You don't want the King of England to just walk in here and start pushing you around, do you? Huh?
Disclaimer: I am an avid shooter and a member of the NRA.
If its set to block those sites out of the box, surely it can be made to unblock them or remove those sites from the 'weapons' category?
Censorware as in Michael, the Slashdot "editor" is squatting the censorware.org domain Censorware?
Censorware who, because of Michael's behaviour, were forced to get a new domain Censorware?
I think the logic behind this (not that I think it should be applied here) essentially stems from the fact that nobody's ever walked into a school and massacred people with anti-gun rhetoric. Even "pro-gun" (sorry, can't think of the right term to use here) organizations point to the danger of public disarmarment as being more indirect than that posed by a kid or disgruntled worker with a gun. And of course, kids and employees are those who are having websited blocked from their view :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Is to fight to uphold the rights of people we really disagree with. This is exactly what went down with Hillary's biography in China - the Govt didn't have to censor it because the publisher did it on their own. Of course, the picture of the world we get still runs through the likes of "Fair and Balanced' news rooms, but blocking off net sites in a way that users might not even realize is happening just can't be allowed to stand....
It seems the paranoid folks think they're trying to sway childrens policital thoughts, but do you really want your child checking out the NRA and gun sites? It seems these companies are so inundated with lawsuits and complaints by all everyone under the sun. They probably felt it was easier to just censor the site and let the parents unblock if if they chose.
Other "nannyware" software in the past has been shown to block access to liberal political sites, now here's one that blocks conservative ones. Maybe this will wake up our elected leaders to the fact that mandating this type of software for libraries and such is bad idea.
I can see parents going to the software store in the future, asking for web filter software and having the retail-droid ask, "Would you like a liberal version or a conservative one?"
As shown earlier or votes don't matter, coupled with this story how long until Diebold or some other company collaborates with rest of these Censorware companies to block sites critical of them? Better yet how long until Symantec blocks sites critical of Symantec? I'll up you even one more, How long until you govt. or one of the ruling parties decide to make use of software such as this to block any material critical of them?
--I could write something witty but why?
Most url filters work like this. We are looking into putting a new one in at work to replace our AV Gateway box which uses Surf Control so we have tested around 20 products, 95% do this as well. Its really not that uncommen. Some even go as nuts as blocking any site where you can purchase knifes and lumping them in the weapons category.
It wouldnt be that bad if we werent a culinary school!!
Looked briefly at the Symantec website - product appears to be a bundle of antivirus, firewall, ..., some filtering software for kids. But presumably there are options that control what gets installed, and in the filtering component, which things get filtered. So if you think it's okay to let your kids read gun websites, then can't you disable the gun filtering?
Anyone actually have first-hand experience of the software?
Symantec doesn't say no to guns at all. The article is about the Parental Controls feature. If a parent wants to stop their kids from visiting gun sites, they click that option.
The feature is just about giving control to parents. If you object to laws prohibiting controversial content on the internet AND you complain when a company gives parents a tool to manage this themselves, you're a hypocrite.
HAHAHAH JK!
This is /. I thought posting a pro-guns article was considered trolling. :-)
Anyway, guns are weapons. The classification is not inaccurate. As far as I know, Symantec is trying to cater to the needs of their customers, not make a political statement. They'll have an "evolution" category soon.
-a
I think this is a very difficult position from the point of Symantec. Where do you draw the line of what to block or not to block?
... why this is a bad thing at all. As the article clearly states all pro gun sites are default blocked in the category "weapons" just as well as all porno sites are default blocked under the category "adult". Just because you happen to use this software in a country where weapons are allowed this doesn't mean that the creator of the software set out to restrict your freedom of speech. Do you think the Netherlands would throw a fit when the same program bans adult sites in its default setting? Didn't think so... Just enable weapon related pages and move on.
There's nothing chilling about this matter. The NRA sites, as stated, are in the weapons category. What the heck do you expect to get censored in that area? If you want your child to visit NRA sites, uncheck the weapons box. Don't blow smoke.
"To my surprise I found the every NRA site was blocked and was in the category 'weapons.'"
The program can be configured to block the categories, if you select "weapons" is it any suprise that the NRA's website is blocked?! I am not against the NRA, but it does fit the filtered category!
I also want to point out that if this is the same list used by their SEF firewalls then Symantec does not maintain that list themselves so you should not be attacking Symantec until they have had a chance to resolve the issue with their vendor.
I'm actually really somewhat surprised that no one has realized openly partisan filters. I would think that a product which could be used to re-enforce a parents political views on there child would sell quite well. Something that would redirect links to sites listed as belonging to the other set of political views back too similar web-sights which walked in lock step with the parents views.
But then maybe I have finally managed to think of something that even the worst parent wouldn't try to do to a child.
The NRA (no matter what your political spin) has been around for ages, and part of its job is instruction in gun safety. Additionally there is info on personal safety. I am not an NRA member nor do I care if you are for/against the organization. Just get your facts from a blocked website...or perhaps a neutral website. BTW I know more people who were killed by motor vehicles than guns...5 to 0.
If you outlaw nuclear weapons, only the outlaws will have nuclear weapons
Check out the rec.guns newsgroup - this was brought up a while before this story broke by a poster on that group.
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte."
Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
English Translation
What do you actually know about the NRA, Alex?
NRA certified instructors train the police - the NRA has been emphasising safe gun use and responsible ownership for more than a century - the NRA has pushed for laws making the use of a firearm in a crime a mandatory additional sentence - which of these do you disagree with?
Most recently, the NRA is working to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, to deter the criminals (who, by the way, are already carrying concealed weapons, illegally). This has reduced crime in every one of the 45 states which allow it. Are you perhaps against that?
What, specifically, that the NRA does, are you against, Alex?
"If you want assault rifles, join the army. We have lots of them" - General Clark (I think)
Disregarding the bit about compensation, this is a very good point. Why on earth does every soccer mom need a gun? I live in Vancouver, and I have never seen a real "shoot-to-kill" gun in my life posessed by an ordinary civilian. Heston is nuts, the right to bear arms is ridiculous. If I've never used my gun, never fept the power, and then my wife goes and has an affair.. hell it happens all the time on CSI. Why shouldn't I shoot him/her?
You americans have a crapload to learn about common sense.
The administrators of the censorware during the 2000 elections blocked Pro-Gore, Pro-Nader, Anti-Bush websites under the catagory of opinion. Can we talk about swaying childrens opinons.
"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction here and merely hoped.
"Is this political slant common in censorware?"
Oh, my. Seems I/we've accomplished nothing.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
...has a new feature that replaces the fax station ID with a random pro software activation message. It also promises to start working correctly as well.
It does not protect from private owned company neither does it force private owned company to allow you a right to speak. What did Symantec might be strange, or a feature , or even a glitch or even a taste of their political view. It does not matter First amendement or any other do not apply there. All amendement apply only within interraction between citizen and governement. not between private people. You do not have the right to express yourself at my home/firm if I say so.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
This isn't about emotions, yours or anyone else's. This isn't about gun control either. Other posts on this board are pointing to the NRA's activities as though they should matter. Should they? Maybe. I don't know for sure, I'd have to reason that out and it would take more time than I have to write this post.
However, when considering issues of this nature, people need to leave their emotions at the door and consider the basic tenet at work which is, as you stated, free speech.
Remember, free speech does *not* mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater. It does not mean you can threaten anyone's life, at least in the state of California, if it is reasonable to suppose that you may carry out the threat and you have the reasonable ability to do so.
I only point these things out because free speech does not guarantee all speech in all situations. It doesn't guarantee the right of certain organizations to be protected merely by virtue of their having been organized and created. Whatever the average American believes about free speech -- and I am, by the way, a pretty typical American, and durn proud uv it -- it doesn't mean you can say anything you want and, in fact, censorship is a daily, very legal reality in the lives of all Americans and has been for decades, whether they believe they've been able to shout from the rooftops whatever they please or not.
So, should the NRA be censored? At first blush, I would say probably not, but to tell you the truth I really don't know for sure. I'm not big on the NRA, but I'm not particularly opposed to them either. What's important to remember is that this issue *should* be about free speech and not about gun control, people's feelings, or sticking it to whomever whatever respective group feels it should be stuck to.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
Oh, come on! It's not even reasonable to block sites about guns or weapons. But to block one side of a political view (the side that supports a legal right granted by the second ammendment, by the way) and not to block the other side (the side that believe in taking away rights not by making changes to the Constitution by rather by ignoring it) is not a question of where to draw the line; it's clearly a case of someone using this software to promote their own political view.
That you might buy this software for your own use is disturbing. That as taxpayers we might buy it and install it in libraries is alarming.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I'm personally on favor of gun controls myself but I'M EVEM MORE IN FAVOR of freedom of speech and expression.
Whether you are "pro-gun" or in favor of controls doesn't matter a whit. Hopefully we can ALL agree that, though we may not always agree on each other's ideas, we need to work together to defend our means of expressing them.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
Karmatic bitchslapping is a protected form of free speech. Read up on it at censorware.org. Oh. Wait a minute...
Yes. Mr. Sims is a hypocrite and a fraud. He has the political mind-think of a 14 year old girl. If only the world were as simple as his mind.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
And (heheheh) if Symantic custmers can't get information on gun safety, only non-Symantic customers will have gun safety.
This comment is disgusting. Its author personifies all of the absurd xenophobia that runs rampant in America (often in the guise of patriotism) nowadays. Also notable is the total lack of, or misunderstanding of the facts; there is not an argument here against the millitary's possesion of guns, or at least not that I can see. And I'm pretty sure that "us americans" didn't get out of our (yes, I am an American citizen) recliners with our shotguns and swim over to Europe--no, I'm pretty sure it was the army.
I'm at least heartened by the fact that the poster seems to have some sense of shame: hence the anonymous posting.
I generally don't recommend anti-virus software because when people do get hit with something they get mad at me, but there's always McAfee.
... free, FAST and open source. It what I use on my home network, personally. Fully administrable via Web browser. If you're looking for a commercial product for a standalone Windows machine, try Kerio Software's Personal Firewall (www.kerio.com.) It's based upon the WinRoute firewall developed by Tiny Software: Kerio bought the rights to the product. I used that for a couple years and never had a problem, and the technology was licensed by the U.S. Air Force to the tune of 30,000 copies.
If you are willing to dedicate a machine (even an old 486) as a router/firewall, try Smoothwall (www.smoothwall.org)
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Um, what? When did they do anything like that? Source?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
No.
The point is not that every soccer mom needs a gun.(in fact I have never seen a soccer mom carrying a gun). The point is, that you can if you want. we don't give out handguns with green cards and birth certificates here even though Europeans and Candians seem to think so.
And how many of those husband wife murders on CSI are commited with knives and not guns?
Default settings, when presented to the general public, become the status quo. Therefore, if the NRA is blocked in the default settings, blocking the NRA will become the status quo. Default settings make a political statement, and affect the worldview of the users of the product.
It does not matter one iota that users can change from the default settings, because 99.99% won't or don't know how.
So since that never actually happened, you're saying that the NRA viewpoint is legitimate? Well, they will be so pleased to receive your validation.
What would you expect? If I choose to filter out "sex", should the software block certain religious websites, because they are vaguely anti-sex? Hell no. So why shoud symantec block anti-gun sites when the user chooses to protect children from weapons? Doesn't make sense at all. This is no censorship or a political decision but the normal behavior anyone would expect from the software.
Sygate Rocks.
This post cannot be re-broadcast without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.
Now let's replace 'racisism' with 'the holocaust':
1) I decide I don't want my kids to read about the holocaust on the web. At least, not in an encouraging, the holocaust-actually-happened way.
2) I buy a product that claims to block web sites according to category.
3) I set it to block sites that are implicitly holocaust-happened-positive.
4) It works.
I don't like censorship. Everyone wants to protect their children and that is well and good, but I would much rather that you would sit down and chat with your kids about the subject than put blinders on them like a stupid horse.
Knowledge is power - good and bad. Your job as a parent is to provide guidance. It is a healthy thing to question your own values every once in a while too, regardless of which way you lean. Either you will strengthen and reaffirm your beliefs, or you will change them. Or am I the only person that believe in doing a reality check?
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
well, goes to show that you never know - big corps do occasionaly do things to improve the general living environment.
If you want your kids looking at the NRA site, edit the filter.
For every apocalyptic loon who's angry because Symantec filters the NRA out by default, there's another apocalyptic loon who doesn't kids looking at Yahoo or Google or The New York Times.
If you were selling a website filter product into the mainstream Windows market, and wanted to make more parents happy than you make angry, you'd block the NRA, too.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
In what way is it a "glitch", or even political, if selecting "weapons" on your filter prevents you viewing gun sites? What category should the NRA be in if not "weapons"?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The NRA says guns don't kill people, people do. But I think the gun helps.
Sounds to me like you've been listening to the great fiction writer, Michael Moore.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
So much for buying a book at work.
GL
... where the hoops you have to go through to own a gun make the procedures in most European countries look quick and simple, and make the US positively neolithic.
And Japan not only has one of the lowest GUN crime rates in the world, one of the lowest murder rates in the world, but one of the lowest rates of ALL kinds of crime in the world.
Where ELSE, and under what OTHER circumstances, do you find cities of twelve million people where you can safely and confidently walk most any street at night; knowing that your chances of falling victim to crime (gun-related, or otherwise) is so miniscule as to not be worth considering?
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
See, the Bush admin supports library filters to the max, hell, they'd probably love to get filters installed on the entire internet. And to think that their work at getting filters in libraries will result in ... an anti-gun bias!
Yeh, I love it.
Infuriate left and right
The NRA is a great source for firearm education and are supporters of making sure that everyone who owns firearms knows what they're doing with them.
If they're going to block the NRA under weapons, they had better also block the DNR and any hunting group or association.
What?
Wow...and you have every right to not buy Symantec products. It's pretty common knowledge that companies try to alter the political landscape either through financial contributions or via leverage in the media, so how is this even news?
blog |
What are you using it for? If it's just a firewall, it doesn't need SSH, Apache, sendmail, BIND, or anything else like that. If you're using it for a firewall, it needs nothing at all.
Everything has holes, because humans are falliable. Linux's holes are known, because we can at least look over the source and find them. If you're going to put up a firewall, there are instructions available to remove everything you don't need. I suggest that you read them.
Besides, Linux "out of the box" is definitely more secure that Microsoft's OSes out of the box...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If your wife has an affair, you divorce the bitch, you don't shoot her. Dumb Canadians! Always resorting to violence.
On the other hand, if she's having an affair with another woman -- then it's okay to shoot her and her lover. Just remember to buy extra video tape. And, uh, send me a copy.
sorry, couldn't resist :)
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Your likely source for this accusation is "Bowling for Columbine". Why don't you find out the actual facts, not the twisted misrepresentation here.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Life in Orange County
And by the way, why is it that half the Canadian provinces are refusing to obey the national firearms registration/confiscation in Canada? Could it be that they agree w/ the yanks????
Symantec was already on my feces list for somehow giving my email address to spammers (I always create a unique email address for dealing with each vendor, and lo and behold, theirs suddenly started being used to sell me Vicodin for enlarging my home mortgage). This pretty much puts it over the edge for me, and I'll avoid their products now, where possible.
We Americans had to fight against tyranny, using guns, to defend our freedom.
My mother knows how to shoot. My sister, who has been attacked when she was alone in the house, knows how to shoot. If you had your way she would have been raped or killed. Thanks for nothing.
Your last sentence is simply more anti-American racism.
You Canadians have a crapload to learn about racism.
You all are making a very big deal about this, which I don't think is necessary. For the record I own several rifles and shotguns. When you install parental control software (which Norton Internet Security features) it will *ALWAYS* come with a pre-defined list of whats acceptable and whats not. You may or may not agree with that pre-defined list so you can tailor it to your needs. If it bothers you so much don't use it.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In otherwords, because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, we cannot infringe on the people's right. The preservation of that right is a precondition for the existence of the well-regulated militia.
If you don't have a people's right to keep and bear arms, you don't have a well-regulated militia. You have a standing army. The National Guard is military. They're not even pretending to be otherwise anymore; these days you hear about the "Army National Guard" and such.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
What does this small issue with Symantec have to do with "rights"?? It isn't your right to use their software, it isn't their right to provide you with anything you want.
Libraries are required to use this kind of software. Publicly funded institutions shouldn't be used to indoctrinate children with political rhetoric.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Symantec products has always sucked, and this is just one more reason not to have anything to do with them.
Ron
Life member NRA, CRPA, CCRBK, etc.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
While you may morally object to hunting (as is your right) it is a legal activity virtually everywhere.
Before someone twists this, let me clarify. Most every legal jurisdiction in the North America and Europe recognizes that hunting is a legal activity. Therefore, it is acknoweldged that people may own the equipment and paraphanalia to do so. That does not imply that hunting is not a regulated activity. One can not shoot pigeons in New York City whenever one pleases, but a New York City resident does have the ability, subject to certain regulation, to own a shotgun which he uses to hunt quail in a suitably location during the appropriate season.
Yes, they doctored the videotape, and that has been WELL-documented. Michael Moore lied, totally doctored the entire "documentary". The proof of that has been all over the media and the internet, including the original unedited footage of Charlton Heston.
Bowling for Columbine is a TOTAL fabrication.
How PC can you get? What is Symantec afraid of? Someone may learn that our country was founded on the right to bear arms in defense of life and liberty; a philosophy continues today. This form of filtering is another form of politically correct sensorship found so often in fascist-controlled countries. Yes, we don't have to buy their product. That's why competition is a wonderful thing.
The noise of air whistling out might be a problem, but the people who just heard muzzle blast inside an enclosed cabin probably wouldn't be able to hear that in time for it to become a big concern either. If it bugs anyone, you can always stuff the hole with a corner of a pillow.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Correction. We had a nice anti-establishment clause in our constitution that forbids the government from forcing religious fairy tales on us. OK, I was a victim of a cult when I grew up (the Cathloics), but I did grow up and learn to think for myself. I do have rights, and no boggy man in the sky gave them to me.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Watching you americans get all worked up about guns is both very *very* amusing and tragically disturbing.
Good luck!
This article is at least somewhat amusing. The author notes that prefatory material, such as the "progress of science and the useful arts" need not limit the scope of constitutional clauses.
Not unobjectiveness. You buy the product because you like what it does. The way it works.
If you don't like it... don't use it. Or modify the filters. Or choose an open source product.
Everything is objective. Why doesn't slashdot cover every submitted news item? Censorship?
Come on people. It's a bit rediculus.
Are medical books used by doctors pornography? Is a doctor studying for pediatrics reading peidophile material?
There's a difference eh?
It's all objective. Some more clear cut than others. This is why we hold elections so people can vote. This is why you can choose what product to buy.
Microsoft says Windows is pretty secure. Agree? Use Linux?
When the NRA went to Columbine to insult and abuse the locals after their tragedy, they pretty much lost all the legitimacy they had for their viewpoint with me.
The NRA never went to Columbine. They went to Denver, to hold the convention that they had planned years in advance. Their position was pretty much like this "We're sorry about your tragedy, but that had nothing to do with US."
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Symantec is not going to NRA households and taking away guns. It's preventing gun advocates from talking about the guns online. This is a free speech issue. For myself, I am vehemently and vociferously anti-gun, but I am pro-Bill of Rights in every particular.
Also: The fact that Symantec is a private, not a government entity and is legally allowed to do this does not necessarily prevent the ACLU from getting involved on behalf of gun speakers. (Again: This about gun speech, not gun ownership.) The problem is as the poster presented it: insidious, secretive spinning of public perception by organizations that have mindshare monopolies. FOX "News" and its chairman Ailes, and Symantec with this filtering product, are on opposite sides of the political spectrum; but they represent the exact same kind of threat to freedom. The ACLU can and should help those trying to put their speech online fight so that Symantec can't do this.
Finally: It should be clear by now that the government should not be mandating that these filters be installed in any public institution. The products--all of them--represent corporate slant, and they have no place in a society that relies on open exchange, never mind in places that are funded by the public for the express purpose of facilitating open exchange, such as a library.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
...in the sense you're using it. I've used Symantec products for years (including Internet Security 2001, 2002, and 2003), so I have some experience here.
Parental Controls are an OPTIONAL part of INSTALLATION! I've never even had it on my computer, which means it's not an issue for anyone who isn't already interested in censoring someone using the computer (kids, etc.). Anyone installing/using the Parental Controls is sure to go through the options (how else can you determine what will be censored?), so this isn't some hidden "default" tactic to fight the NRA. Most parents (you can bet they research this stuff) will want pornography, weapons-promoting sites, etc. blocked, so it makes sense to have them checked by default.
Additionally, the reason the "weapons" filter would block the NRA but not anti-gun sites is simply the reason it exists - it's what parents want blocked - weapons-promoting sites. Symantec isn't just pulling this out of a hat, they're catering to the demands of consumers. This isn't censorship, it's not politically-motivated, and it's not an anti-gun statement by Symantec - it's economics and it's not being foisted on anyone.
GL
They've violated a humour writer's copyright [http://www.jokeaday.com], and now this. They have no sense of right and wrong. You remember that FOX show Brimstone where a condemned dead cop was charged with hunting down escaped demons? Well Symantec is that cop, from HELL, chasing other's demons. They are no better than what they hunt down.
Why slashdot? Why not?
I recommend Kerio Personal Firewall and Avast! anti-virus. Both are free for personal, home use.
-
Intratech KG9 Full Auto Machine Gun $2669
-
Groundbreaking for new machine gun plant in Georgia. " Columbus businesswoman Terry Hadden tries out the MP5SD, a sound suppressed submachine gun". Click here to buy.
-
For those times when you need more firepower, try the Starstreak Hypervelocity Missile.
-
Your posse can't get its act together? Here's how the Marines do it. The "Warfighting" series is a good read.
-
Unsure what to do with all this firepower? Read Parameters, the journal of the Army War College, where generals talk shop.
That's the real stuff. So how does Symantic's censorware do on it?"You've seen the "TEC's" in the movies and on TV, now here's a chance to own one at an affordable price. This KG9 is a registered receiver conversion. It comes with the front K grip for added controlability. Its (sic) definately (sic) a handful of fun!"
After a while you can make the blocks mandatory, and nobody will notice.
You are familiar with the parable of the "camel's nose in the tent", aren't you?
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
So people who want to eliminate all private firearms ownership, are being more fair than Symantec.
Boy, this is going to really tempt me to warez all of my anti virus products from now on.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
sigh.
yet another sucker.
Your constitution doesn't give you the right to bare arms. It gives the states the right to form armed militias.
It is you who's been manipulating and abusing disinformation.
'From My Cold Dead Hands!' - Yes Charlton, that will happen, and not soon enough.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
When my kid needs to do a report on gun control issues, I'll uncheck the "weapons" box.
1. Lots of posts saying that Symantec is a private corp and can do what they want.
2. A Few retorts saying that even though Symantec is private, their software is being used in libraries, thereby censoring or applying their views to government funded institutions that are supposed to be neutral.
3. Huge flamewar about how gun control is good or bad.
4. People bitching about the ACLU and whether or not it will defend second ammendment rights and if it's a second ammendment issue or a first ammendement issue.
5. Nobody talking about how they could use a gun to go hunting and get food.
6. I hate Sementec / I love Symantec flamewar, what's the best firewall?.
7. Conservative Bashing / Liberal Bashing / George Bush = Adolf Hitler posts.
8. Are you still reading this list?
9. A LOT of posts about how the US sucks and the Euros and Japanese are doing everyting right with guns, crime, patents, and any other government regulation issues.
10. I have no sig, so I thought I'd make number 10 some kind of question on how to make a recursive post sig. How would it be done?
I guess this is why ESR is running linux
Those who would sacrifice liberty to gain security have neither.
anyone remember who said that?
When governmental agencies use the Symantec product (i.e. public libraries) it's entirely plausible a first amendment challange can be mounted.
A Good Intro to NetBS
How about if a huge guy broke into your house and was rummaging through your kitchen shouting "I'm gonna stick you and your kids like pigs!". Call the police and wait 5 minutes? Lock your door and hope he can't break them? If I ordered someone like that to leave and shot him when he didn't would you consider me a criminal?
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Ok now, what is a filter designed to do? Protect kids. No, they don't do a good job. But even so guys, let's think. NRA websites, pro gun websites, instructions on gun use, these can hurt people! Pro-gun or anti-gun, you have to admit that the Brady website is never going to hurt anyone. A shotgun can. This isn't about free speech; this is about protection. Personally I believe CIPA should be repealed and that filters are bad; but if you are going to use them, this is a GOOD decision.
...they shouldn't have blocked these sites.
I'm anti-weapons, and my first thought was that this was a good thing. Then I realized, Hey, I'm also pro-free speech. A bit of an ethical tug-o-war ensued in my balding head.
I can't say this is a good thing, but I can't say it's bad either, at least in my own views/morals/ethics/what-have-you. On one hand, I think guns should be banned from public use. On the other hand, I wear a shirt from time to time that says "Eat Shit."
What to do...
Insert clever one liner here.
A few things to remember about the National Rifle Association:
- After Columbine, they organized a rally in Denver.
- After the shooting in Flint, Michigan, they organized a rally in Flint.
- It was founded the SAME YEAR that the Ku Klux Klan became an official terrorist organization.
This isn't a gun safety organization. These are people who want to kill.
So far as I can tell, the NRA is correct. All of the various anti-gun acts passed in the 1960's and later have failed to produce the benefits claimed for them; crime rates exploded after the Gun Control Act of 1968, for example. It was definitely time to stop the knee-jerk reactions and look around for other solutions to the problem... oh, 20 years ago.
Insanity, n.: Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Fanaticism, n.: Redoubling one's efforts after losing sight of one's goal.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
First Amendment applies to Congress, which is defined in the Constitution as comprising of a House of Representitives and a Senate. It does not apply to "government", which would include State Legislatures as well. That's how the Constitution is written, but it's a meaningless document anyway in the legal system.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
I'm confident that people wanting to block NRA sites don't own guns and won't need gun education, except to know how to defend themselves against gun violence. I trust the filter doesn't censor information about 9-1-1, Neighborhood Watch programs and self-defense training.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/02/17 29239&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=153&tid= 99
We will no longer consider any of your products for internal use or recommend them to our clients. In addition I and our entire office are now actively recommending alternative products to our family and friends.
If at some point in the future you change your anti-first amendment anti-second amendment attack we will review our policy.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
(Vancouver AC here)
Heh.. You guys can't even distinguish a video game from reality. Doom -> Columbine.
This stuff is spoon-fed to americans, by americans.
Note: I'm just a 16 year-old guy from Vancouver. You undoubtedly know more about this stuff than me. I'm just saying, I can't see a reason why non-hunters should need a loaded gun, unless they're murderers at heart. If you're mad or you feel the need for revenge, my email address is qartis@qartis.com (no, I'm not the "lil penis" guy, though he has made quite a few valid points.)
This is false. If this has happened, cite the cases.
Maybe because the NRA sites argue for guns, while the others argue against... That would be the point of filtering it, wouldn't it? Filters are bullshit, but it would make sense for a filter designed to remove pro-violence content to block the NRA.
You obviously don't have any children in the public school system.
Not yet. I'm still to much about me with my money.
Each year, I have "the talk" with my children about what are appropriate questions for teachers to ask, and one of them is NOT "does your daddy have any guns in the house?"
When I move in with my GF, I'll have to remember to have that talk with her kids.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
First came Symantec's Product Activation, their statement that only money matters and not their customers.
Now comes Symantec's disregard for their customer's rights of constitutional knowledge, the rights to bear arms.
Since they're pretty much 0wn3d by Microsoft, will Linux sites be blocked next?
I will never patronize Symantec again.
I guess my point is, and its the same thing with the internet, you can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Your never ever going to be able to prevent criminals from having guns, no matter what laws you make. If guns exist, criminals will use them.
There must be 2 kinds of people in this world. those who depend on others to secure things for them(i.e. the police, your OS company) and those who feel they must protect themselves.
fine with me really, this way when criminals find out I have a gun, they can go to YOUR house.
You must be seriously disappointed with the state of Slashdot these days!
I, for one, beowulf soviet russia.
P.S. SCO sucks.
You can't take the sky from me...
Sure, add an abortion filter. That's the point of filter software. Cover a range of potentially offensive topics and let the user decide what to filter.
In terms of libraries, the government will quickly learn the idea of filtering libraries is too thorny because it has to take an official position of every controversial issue. The evil there is the law, not filtering software.
Infidel! You will burn in hell!
Then perhaps Bush should redirect his $1,000,000,000.00/day Iraq budget towards crime, so american soil is safe from itself?
Please indicate where this is "all over the media and the internet".
I mean please list well know news organizations and agencies, rather than right-wing, gun-totin', proud-of-my-murderous-outlaw-ancestors NRA apologist sites like http://www.hardylaw.net/.
Because, I'd never heard of the so-called "proof" until I was led to this site earlier today. And considering the source ("an attorney and Waco author"), I still don't believe it.
So please, enlighten me, but try to be fair and unbiased.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
. . . rises to the bait . . .
No, it is YOU who are the sucker, and an illiterate one at that. Put down your HCI propaganda piece and read a simple linguistic analysis, one that proves you wrong. Quoth the poster:
Your constitution doesn't give you the right to bare arms [sic]. It gives the states the right to form armed militias.
The text of the Second Amendment is:
The text of the Fourth Amendment is:
The text of the First Amendment, in pertinent part, is:
Okay, tell me again how "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments means individuals citizens, but in the Second it doesn't? Sorry, but the only interpretation that makes sense is the one involving individuals.
If you can show me a page on the NRA's site called "How to kill 50 people before breakfast with a Smith and Wesson BFG-6900 and still have enough ammo left over to cripple a few commies too", I will send you a $10,000 money order right now. Same goes for any page on the site advocating kids wantonly killing people.
If you bothered to actually exercise your human capacity for free thought and checked the website out, you'd find information on safety, hunting, and political action. Whether you agree with the political positions or not, nowhere is there anything advocating criminal activity.
What else you'll find are news articles from independent media detailing people protecting themselves from dangerous criminals. I agree whole-heartedly that guns must be kept away from criminals, but as a law-abiding citizens I have a right to protect myself. The police have no legal obligation to protect me or my family (check the case law), so we're each on our own.
One well-placed bullet will take down pretty much every aircraft ever made, with the slight exception of helicopter gunships. In Vietnam, they shot down our advanced jet fighters with ak-47s. However, tanks are a different story.
That reminds me of a recent article in Popular Mechanics- California rebels, doesn't have much of a chance. It's set in the near future, but... anyone know if they would have a chance?
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
Sheesh... yet another twit heard from. Go read the decisions yourself, without a hoplophobic filter. The main decision cited is Miller, where the SCOTUS held that shotguns with sawed-off barrels (less than 13" in this case, IIRC) could be banned as they were not suitable for use by militia. This decision would tend to support the argument that people should be allowed to own cannons and hand grenades, so be careful in using it to support your agenda.
Since you fouled the last one off so badly, want to try again? How can you claim that the word people, when used in the Second Amendment, means something totally different from its meaning in every other amendment? You cannot, logically. And before you trot out that old cannard about militia, note that the phrase containing militia is a subordinate clause; that means it is used to support the sentence. To be logically consistent, which is more than I expect, you would have to argue that the idea of free speech only applies to organized news agencies and that individuals have no right to express their opinions.
There was an interesting exercise done a few years back, where the word book was substituted for the word gun, and educated for armed. When you apply the arguments used against the second amendment to the revised one, you see how ludicrous they are and that the arguments are not about the meaning of the amendment but instead are about banning guns.
Getting back to the topic at hand, this is nothing but an underhanded attempt by Symantec to push a political agenda. The fact that it is done silently, and that CIPA mandates use of software like this, only makes it more offensive.
Bother, said Pooh, as he called in an air strike.
You're right, of course, that as an enforcible mandate, the Amendment applies only to the government. The ideals behind First Amendment rights, however, are universal. While we don't have any basis to sue Symantec in court over this, we DO have a right, and indeed a responsibility to fight them with the means we DO have, such as boycotting their software so they get the message. As I said in my China example, once third parties, who control enough of the public's access to information, censor pervasively enough, the government doesn't need to anymore. And then there's always the question of what happens when/if a public library, technically a government entity, installs this privately created software.....
To block a site that discusses a constitutional right is absolutely unacceptable.
If this is actually true and they want to push their political agenda, then semantic should be sued, and boycotted. Then proptely put out of business.
( actually i don't think blocking of illegal activities is wrong either, but that's a different story )
This really cant be true as its almost beyond imagination that its taking place.....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You seem to take a very poor view of the NRA in general. If you wouldn't mind, could you provide links to the articles you mentioned above? I realize the titles may not be the same, but just let us know when the NRA as an organization has published or posted instructions on killing people with Hollywood bravado, or when they've detailed how to maximize the potential of a weapon to kill human beings before your morning meal.
As far as my experience goes, the NRA does not advocate such practices. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary?
And I'm pretty sure that "us americans" didn't get out of our (yes, I am an American citizen) recliners with our shotguns and swim over to Europe--no, I'm pretty sure it was the army.
The most effective people on the battlefied have handled guns in civillian life. If one person has been killing deer since he was 12, and another person had never touched a firearm before basic training who do you think will be the better shot?
If you have spent 10 years learning how to hide from the keen eyes of animal life, don't you think you'll have a better idea of how to conceal yourself from the enemy than the guy who has never been outside of the city?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The real problem (as I see it) isnt the pro-gun vs anti-gun, its the average American view of what guns are. To get it out of the way, I'm "pro-gun", but anti-pro-gun people. Here's my circular train of logic. We look at guns wrong. We, as a people have a grand general misconception of what guns are. They are, in a matter of fact, an instrument of death. What I point my gun at, I intended to kill, to end the life of, to wipe out of exisistence FOREVER. Guns should be looked at for exactly what they are. The idea that you have guns for entertainment or protection is asine. I reiterate, you have guns to END LIFE. It is a purely offense weapon. Not fun, not play (well, I do hunt, but I do so to end the life of what I'm hunting, not play with the damn thing, and I do enjoy it, but the perception is the point here :P), not childerns toys. I know this sounds uniformly boring, but this glorification of guns and the people that glorify them (Heston is an unsenstive prick) need a serious reality check. This idea of giving kids toy guns and embraceing the idea that a loaded handgun in the dresser somehow makes us safer needs to end.
So by now I bet you think I was lying about the pro-gun stance. I wasn't. What people who often cry afoul of guns miss out on the big picture.
What was it like before guns? Swords? Before that? Clubs? I mean, come on. Would you really have a society where the strong literaly rule over the weak (again)? Guns put everyone, even a 8 year old boy, on a level playing feild for ending life. It takes the ability to bring death out of the hands of the strong and into the hands of everyone. Morbid? A bit, but morbidly realistic none the less. And more then that, fair.
So theres my stance on guns, but not neccesarly automatic weapons. Those i dont understand why anyone would support. The ability to end the life of multiple individuals in an extremely short amount of time is something I can't bring myself to agree with. It tips the playing field if you will.
The entire constitution is about PEOPLES rights and governmental RESTRICTIONS.
If this is their interpretation, then they are wrong. No where in the amendment does it say only the government has a right. it specifically says people have the right..
Grrrrr.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But as it is written all the 14th does is expand RIGHTS. The only right outlined in the First is the right to peacably assemble. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, none of them have the all important word "right" used to describe them. As I said before, the Constitution is now a meaningless document, especially when you consider that the word "no" in the First Amendment is widely regarded in legal circles NOT to mean NO. Any word or phrase can be reinterpreted in the Constitution to mean something else, even it's opposite. There are no longer any Constitutional garuntees, so it is possible for the First to either be expanded to mean buisnesses the same way it was expanded to include the States or for the First to be tossed out completely as was done with the Second because it does not explicity say it applies to individuals. It's a worthless document now.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Listen - this is what happens when we ask someone else to make decisions for us.
If you are a parent, you have 3 choices:
1) Sit down with your child and explain what sites are acceptabe and which are not. Then either monitor their activity or trust them.
2) Assign the responsibilty of deciding which sites are acceptable by purchasing and using filtering software. Just remember that you are not going to agree 100% with the decisions made by any of these software makers as to which content is appropriate and which is not.
3) allow unfiltered, unmonitored access to the internet.
Just my 2 cents
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
A milita is comprised of PRIVATE CITIZENS.
Scared, no, I am exersizing my RIGHTS. You apparently are scared that i have the right.
End of discussion.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Any member of the NRA should be shot on sight!
At my place of business, we use Network Associates for our virus scanner (warning: PDF!). It is available with an enterprise control panel that other sites in my org enjoy. (I prefer to script out most of the deployment functions for my site.)
:)
This, combined with good general IT practices, have kept us virus-free for quite some time. YMMV, of course
The ACLU is too busy defending the right to promote child molesting.
In self-serving fashion, the ACLU notes that the father of the murdered boy -- who is suing NAMBLA -- praises the ACLU for defending NAMBLA
Wired puts a different spin on it:
The ACLU interprets Roe v. Wade as meaning that minors must be allowed to get an abortion, without having to even notify their parents (much less get their permission), and that taxpayers must subsidize abortions.
But "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the government," because a 30 year old woman is apparently too stupid to weight the risks vs. benefits of owning and/or carrying a firearm for self-protection, and can be denied the right to make that choice.
If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.
Constitutional scholars who have bothered to write about the issue in various law review journals do not agree with the ACLU's position. You can read the law review articles for yourself at the Second Amendment Law Library. Much better than stuff put out by any pro- or anti-gun special interest group.
In justifying the ACLU's position on gun control, ACLU President Nadine Strossen said that
I would take the first sentence of the preamble of the Constitution and the debate about it to mean that "The People" is a collection of individuals; not some amorphous, collective consciousness. The "We" in "We, the People" is redundant if you assume "the People" to be the collective populace. At one point in the drafting of the Constitution the debate was whether the preamble should start with, "We, the states..." This language was discarded, in part, to emphasize that the system of government being created took its legitimacy by being instituted by the individuals being governed. "The People" as used in the constitution means individuals.
I would also guess that the group think concept of "the People" being anything other than individuals is a modern invention that would have made no sense to the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To them, there was the government and the individuals who made up "the governed." This also fits with other historical documents of the time (e.g., the Declaration of Independence) and the concept of government only being legitimate if it represented the interests of the governed as individuals. This was in contrast to the justifications of a monarchy that were bandied about then (and still are now in places like Saudi Arabia) that the monarch represented their subjects.
Finally, the constitution makes *no* provision for any collective other than the nation and the states. Nothing in the constuitution creates corporations, political parties, or any sort of organization. All rights and responsibilities are clearly that of individuals and the restrictions are on what the government can and cannot do. The only crime specifically discussed in the Constitution is treason; this being the only Constitutional restriction on the activities of an individual.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Uh-uh. I mean make felons out of gun owners. As in, it's a felony to be in possession of a gun.
I'd make exceptions for licensed hunters, target shooters, etc. who provide evidence that they are adequately insured or bonded. (Just like auto insurance.)
I'd also give people a no-questions-asked $200 tax credit for every gun brought in for destruction. (If it works for Bush, it oughta work for guns. Consider it shotgun economics.)
Anyone else who wants a gun can, per the 2nd amendment, join a "militia", i.e., the military or the police.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
One hour, one reboot and 50 megabytes later, I'm still getting it set up. Lord help anyone on dialup with this thing.
Interesting (if offtopic) is the fact that even the trial mode contains DRM. Glad I made that image first and glad I installed it on the lab rat, not this PC.
Only on
Sorry.. but the idea of citizens owning guns in case of a corrupt or opressive state is amusing at best to us foreigners..
A $400 billion per year army against a couple of fruitcakes with some assault rifles... I mean really what are you going to do ?? stop a tank round with your kevlar vest ?? Flap your arms fast enough and you might just be able to keep up with the jet fighters...
I dont agree that guns cause violence but i honestly dont believe there is a single good reason to have guns lying around so that people with less than ideal levels of self control dont get too carried away.
This really is much more of a free speech issue then a gun issue, but I'm going to plug a great gun book anyway. There are way to many ladies spreading gun FUD.
More Guns, Less Crime
What the ACLU didn't tell you there is that the Supreme Court has only touched one 2nd amendment case, and that was some 60 years ago (forgive me if the dates are wrong - I'm doing this from memory). However there are 2 cases coming through the pipeline that the SCOTUS will likely grant cert to (this means they will hear the cases). One from a conservative 5th circuit, and one from a liberal 9th circuit.
There are two interpretations of the 2nd amendment: The first says that it is a 'collective' right, that only state militias are given the right to bear arms; The second theory holds that this freedom is extended to individuals. If and when the SCOTUS hears these cases, many legal scholars expect the court hold the "individual rights" theory (please note that every other freedom spelled out in the Bill of Rights is extended to the individual). You probably have already figured out quite obviously that the 5th circuit takes the "individual right" theory and the 9th circuit holds the "collective rights" theory.
Also, Judge Reinhardt from the 9th circuit, one the most liberal judges on the 9th circuit (and perhaps the most liberal judge in the entire country), concedes (and correctly I might add) that ex-military and ex-law enforcement officers are not "super citizens" that are allowed to bear arms while the rest of the country is not.
For you legal eagles out there, here are the cites for the two cases:
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (2002) - this is the 9th circuit case
U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001) - this is the 5th circuit case.
The 9th circuit case is great because there is are EXCELLENT dissertations on both the collective and indivual rights theories. I'm glad things like this are on slashdot, we as geeks need to be more informed at the voting booth. Whatever side you take on this issue, just remember to vote!!
Thanks,
--Matt
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Modern firearms are vastly easier to use, way more powerful and reliable than anything available back then - at close range you could probably kill more quickly and effectively with a decent modern combat knife by the time you've reloaded one of those clunkers.
The lethality of firearms has changed much less than you might expect, because modern medicine is overwhelmingly superior to 18th century medicine. A gunshot wound would have been much more likely to lead to infection and subsequent amputation or death. Recall that the Civil War was the bloodiest in this nation's history.
If you really are pro gun-control you should be able to educate your children as to why you believe what you believe and respond to their questions. If your kid reads a pro gun site and has questions about the 2nd amendment that is the perfect opportunity for you to explain your views.
If you really are pro gun-rights you should be able to educate your children as to why you believe what you believe and respond to their questions. If your kid reads a pro gun control site and has questions about the 2nd amendment that is the perfect opportunity for you to explain your views.
The availibility of information (or misinformation) and viewpoints on the web is supposed to make us think about and challenge our beliefs. If you don't want your children to challenge your beliefs and think for themselves what kind of parents are you?
Stuart Eichert
Well, I never claimed to be an expert, I was only responding to the parent post with direct contradictions of his claims.
;)
If what you say is true, I guess it's not good to have any kind of gun on an aircraft and depressurization cause by gunfire is a very real danger...
Thanks for the help
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Before I saw Kill Bill, I thought it wasn't going to be too violent since I heard they used swords instead of guns. After seeing it, I can't imagine any movie with guns that could be more gorier. Limbs and blood flying everywhere. Eew.
As far as outlawing guns, it sounds like a great idea, until you realize that the only people they could round up the guns from is the good people. Most bad people get their guns illegaly or steal them from someone else, so any laws against guns wouldn't affect them. Which would defeat the purpose of outlawing guns.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
The NRA promotes a number of things. gun safety among them.
The MPAA promotes a number of things. Among these are vivid depictions of people killing, maiming, and otherwise behaving in an anti-social manner with weapons. I dare say that there have been more murders, mayhem, and such inspired by products of the MPAA than products of the NRA.
"...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..."
Isn't "weapons" just a category that can be blocked or not, depending on whose controlling the software? Thus I think it is fairly accurate to include pro-gun sites under "weapons." If a parents wants to block weapons-related information, then they can use this category. If not, they won't.
Frankly, I don't think this "large corporate entity" really cares at all about any of these 'moral' issues and is just creating an accurate classification of web sites for their censorware product. Ooh, chilling indeed.
I think its more appropriate to ask, "Is this political slant common in popular media." Since that would have a far greater affect on our laws and civil liberties, don't you think?
But if it is what can be done about it? Boycott the News? Yeah, like that will ever happen.
But I can always blame it on the capitalists, since just about everything is done for the sole purpose of generating revenue without thinking about the consequences of their actions.
The is American, land of the litigous and home of the lawyers. Next time some kid gets hurt playing with a gun, their family should sue Symantec for blocking the kid's access to firearm safety sites!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
It was called the Revolutionary War. I use we in a collective sense indicating the people who built my country.
True - against the entity, not Symantec.
Symantec, just like you and I, are under no obligation to provide anyone a forum to expres their views. Symantec can censor whatever they please, and we can chose not to buy their product based on their choices - that's the wonder of a market economy.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"It is easily disabled/configurable as any blocking software is."
No, its not configurable; that's the point.
Good blocking software would allow you to view the list of sites being blocked and then enable individual sites or add your own.
No blocking software does this primarily because the only thing of value this software brings to the table is a list of objectionable sites.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Actually, considering that most gun deaths (in civilized countries anyway, I'm not sure about the statistics for the US) occur from legal, registered guns, I'm all for it.
You're right. Criminals will always have guns. And the numbers show time and time again that you having one rarely stops you from getting hurt by a criminal. The only thing gun control can possibly do is to reduce the number of carelessly obtained/stored/loaded/whatever guns sitting in your neighbour's garage.
The same gun that his 8 year old son is going to use to knock off a few people for kicks.
Get rid of those weapons, please. There are far too many kids shooting each other with guns that shouldn't have been around in the first place.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
You have a large number of other players to choose from.
Typically, a local public library system is going to have only one censorware product installed and will not make terminals available where the public can access the Internet through a competing filter product.
Will I retire or break 10K?
First, they could expend extra money and time to purchase another product - which is resources that could otherwise be spent inproving other services. Second, they could turn off internet access altogether
False dichotomy. Third, the library could configure the software to censor the sexual indecency categories but leave the weapon control categories alone.
Will I retire or break 10K?
certainly got a whole heap of heads inflamed and pointlessly venting. Same comes up every time with guns, no?
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
I agree with your description of Miller and the tendancy towards military arms. But another point against the arguement the 2nd applies only to militia and armys is that, if only a soldier has gun rights, than any order for a soldier to give up his/her weapon would be illegal (ie Military Police arresting the soldier would be impossible). It is ludicrious to think that the Constition explicity gives the US Government the right to arm its soldiers (ie what army does not arm its soldiers). The Bill of rights as written apply only to individuals (ie people). If the gun-control people want to remove this right -- do it legally by a constititional amendment (or convention). Any other way is illegal and in my opinion treasonous.
I'm assuming this works like squidguard and other blocking software, in that a person can pick and choose categories. If I'm wrong, please note it.
Assuming I'm correct, this is a *good* feature. If I want to block gun sites, I expect the software I pay money for to have that feature enabled.
You may not want to block gun sites. Fine, don't enable that feature. But don't rant about civil rights (they don't generally apply to non-governmental entities) and saying it is a right wing conspiracy. It is a profit-making corporation catering to its customers- parents who may or may not want to block weapons sites, or schools that may have an interest in blocking sites about guns.
If you don't want your school/library to block that category (where civil rights do apply), deal with it at the school committee/government level. Stop crying about a private company meeting demand.
Last year there were 80 gun-related deaths in the whole of the England and Wales (population ~53.5 million) and in the year before that there were 95. So for the last full year for which data is available, gun deaths in the UK fell by one sixth.
. stm.
In those same years, just how many gun deaths were there in the US? Are you telling me that the gun murder rate in America is at all comparable? That it's around 450 such deaths a year total? Seriously? Yeah, right.
The total number of gun incidents in the UK, which includes all instances of a gun, real or imitation just being present (and not necessarily used), stood at 10,250 for the 12 month period to March 2003.
When you consider that figure of 10,250 includes occasions such as when some jokers tried to hold up a bank with their hands hidden in their pockets in the shape of a gun then you have an idea at how inflated that figure is above reality.
It should also be noted that the overwhelming majority of gun incidents and deaths are related to drug dealing. So, unless you're a major drug dealer, you're chances of getting shot and in the UK are almost zero. Can you say the same of the US?
So, with regards to gun crime you're completely inaccurate. Similarly with crime in general because the British definition of what constitutes a crime and what doesn't is far stricter than in the US and many other countries.
For example, if you and I started pushing each other around in the street, without a single punch being thrown, and a policeman was called to investigate, then that incident would most likely show up in official figures. Elsewhere, it most probably wouldn't register.
If you're really interested in the facts then do some research. Here's where I got my facts from (reporting of official government figures) and where you'll get a truer idea of the situation in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908
Frankly, I doubt that you'll look at a damn thing. You'd much rather spout the kind of inaccurate rubbish that the NRA, etc sells about you being safer with guns than without them. Dream on. I don't know what I find more disturbing, that you can hold such a wildly off base opinion or that enough people agree with your flawed thinking to moderate you up to "+5 insightful".
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
the art of forcing others into your views.
those with power often wield it.
what next? satire sites? anti-bush sites, anti-dmca sites? linux sites? anti-riaa sites? pro-choice and pro-freedom sites?
let's filter everyone's views of life in ways that would make hitler proud to insure our safety and freedom! gotta love it.
a commericial product which allows the user to selectively perform their own filtering.
Censorware typically carries access control designed to prevent the user from disabling the filter. Remember that the user is not always the owner, and the owner may in fact be a state government that mandates use of a particular censorware product in its public libraries in response to a federal mandate that it implement some censorware system.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Panda Soft Antivirus is the Best! Also give Tiny Personal Firewall a try.
[England's] murder rate higher than DC's is a shameless lie (see other replies). It's even much smaller than the average rate for the US and falling (see other replies).
there is a correspondence, not a causality (HUGE difference).
True, correlation does not imply causation, but correlation does indicate a need for more study, possibly including experiments.
Whether the parents are selective in their fights isn't relevant - this is what they want.
Then why doesn't censorware block the web sites of PG-13(tm) and R(tm) rated movies under the "Typical" settings the way it blocks gun-safety sites under the "Typical" settings?
Will I retire or break 10K?
It isn't like the product doesn't allow for the child to say,
"Dad, I would like to go to this web site about guns and gun safety, but the software blocked me. Could you help?"
"Sure, boy, let's go look at the site together."
Many public libraries, required to install censorware by the U.S. government, have instituted a policy of never turning off the filter, even for adults carrying proof of age.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Can we end the mindless ACLU bashing? Symatec's firewall is a private product made by a private company, if you know anything about the ACLU it deals with government and usually in the sphere of legislation being challenge because its unconstitutional.
Yes, they also protect speech, many times speech you may not like.
Want to make the ACLU a better organization? Join your local state-level chapter, get your friends involved, and voice your opinion.
Don't forget that the federal government has mandated that public libraries implement web censorware, and some libraries refuse to turn off the filter even for adults.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So 'the people who build your country' fought to give you independance. Umm.. why do you need a gun? I fail to see the connection.
Saddam needed to be dealt with
Says you.
The Nazi party name was NSDAP, or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (please excuse any misspellings).
National Socialist German Labor Party.
Now again, how is that NOT socialist?
the decision to use this particular program is still made by someone
Are you implying that the system would correct itself by making this "someone" the target of nasty letters to the editor?
and there are lots of libraries
A person who cannot afford a computer and Internet access typically cannot afford an automobile and insurance to transport himself to another county's library system. Second, some public libraries restrict web access to cardholders, who incidentally must be residents of the county.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You Canucks have a lot to learn about Freedom!
I'm curious.. What part of my life isn't free? Under whose control do I fall?
13,000 gun deaths for the whole of the US. Compared to 80 gun deaths for the whole of England and Wales and 10,250 total incidents. I think you've proved my point for me.
75 to 80 percent drug-related leaves 20 to 25 percent non-drug-related. Which, by your figures, is an astounding 2,600 to 3,250. Compared to say, 16 to 20 (using the same non-drug-related estimates) for England and Wales.
Now, the US has 5 to 6 times the population of England and Wales. But over 160 times as many gun deaths that aren't related to drugs. Tell me again which is the safer society when it comes to gun deaths and gun crime in general?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Many public libraries, required to install censorware by the U.S. government, have instituted a policy of never turning off the filter, even for adults carrying proof of age.
...the Solicitor General "assured" the Court that if an adult wanted unfettered access to the Internet in a public library, he could ask to have the filters removed, and the library could remove them. Again, while no single opinion commanded a majority on the Court, at least five of the Justices who concurred in the judgment relied at least partly on this condition in reaching their decisions, and prophesied the possibility of a different result if the statute is not administered consistent with its terms.
Sorry, but I call your bluff. In the case US vs. ALA decided by the US Supreme Court June 23, 2003...
So, if what you are saying is true, then these policies are illegal and a test case will have them declared so in the courts.
Don't set up such obvious strawmen, baby, or I'll just burn 'em right down...
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
Can anybody recommend a firewall product that is not ZoneAlarm OR A RIP OFF/CLONE!
I'm sick of all the firewall software out there that is idiot centric. I don't want:
* Software that asks me if I want this that and every other fucking app to access the net in this and that way.
* Software that lets me know that "SOMEONE IS BREAKING INTO YOUR COMPUTER TO STEAL YOUR CREDIT CARDS!" every fucking minute.
* Gives me no real TCP and IP stack level control.
* Tries to fuck up the network when you go to lan. (just give me OPEN 192.168.0.255:*!)
My current firewall (3 year old product that got brought up by McAfshit and converted into 'Not another ZoneAlarm') gets +300 hits a day in its logs. I wan't a prouct with a minimal resouce overhead, that works well that I just need to set up and forget.
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
As if to make things worse, there are cases such as India and a crapload of countries that followed India's example where guns and violence were eschewed with unarguably better results - of course, India was facing a unique situation, fighting a liberal democracy that, through accident of situation, was acting the ruthless dictator with it.
And of course, prolonged gun battles can cause misery. Britain, again, can demonstrate this with Northern Ireland, where for thirty years the majority of people there had to live in misery precisely because of the militias, split along ideological lines, that were set up to fight for independence.
I don't think the "we need guns to protect freedom" argument really works out in practice. I respect the people making it, but I just don't see it working.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You know, it's stuff like this that constantly reminds me of how much more politically tuned I need to be. I'm a news junkie, but that usually means watching a lot of mainstream media and not keeping up with bills going through congress nearly as much as I should.
For some silly reason, I'm not even sure I've ever heard of CIPA (the Children's Internet Protection Act), even though it's been overturned and taken to the Supreme Court and upheld. It's obviously not very newsworthy, or I just wasn't paying attention.
Something unusual about this law is that you can read it in a single sitting. It's simple and short. I'll share with you what I learned in about a half hour, just in case you didn't know about it either. You're aware of the Universal Service Fee on your phone bill, of course. Well that goes into an FCC fund that enables discounts on phone lines and internet access to eligible schools and libraries. Well, this law threatened to take that assistance away (and, in my interpretation, threatened to force schools and libraries to pay back all money they had ever received from the Universal Service Program) if they don't install some sort of software to filter material deemed harmful to minors.
That's essentially it, although the law goes on to say that the federal government won't establish guidelines about what to filter and won't approve or dissapprove any local guidelines. That's certainly a good thing. But I was impressed by how incredibly short and sweet the law is. But I still found myself disagreeing with it, for the same reason that the law was challenged in court, on the grounds that filtering is an imperfect science and that these measures would block genuinely useful information, which is, of course, protected by the First Ammendment, from reaching users in schools and libraries.
Now then, it didn't take long in my Google searching to find ads from all sort of companies, touting "CIPA Compliance" in their software. Ha! Well that's not very hard, considering the government specified only one requirement with which to comply... the software must be capable of filtering. Even a simple web proxy that allows the administrator to enter URLs one at a time of websites that are "deemed to be harmful to children" is complaint with CIPA. And, of course, this was a great opportunity for the software sales snakes of America to capitalize on a new law requiring their software. So you think this software is cheap? Ha! Guess again. When the government makes a law requiring something to be bought, that something goes up in price.
Sheesh.
Oh, and the original topic.... about filtering NRA stuff and not anti-gun stuff. Yeah, I completely agree. The NRA, as largely a political organization, should absolutely not be filtered. There's nothing there at all harmful to children. The NRA and its members are the very most responsible advocates of gun ownership you will ever run across.
RP
I wish I had mod points for you. Great Post.
How could I say to men: "Speak louder, shout! For I am deaf!"? -Ludwig van Beethoven
and AVG anti-virus is free as well.
Infidel!! You will burn in hell, lil penis! And I'm not American nor European!
This inconsistent stand proves the ACLU uses the Constitution as a means (for its lib agenda), rather than an end.
Today, most constitutional scholars believe that the Second Amendment does protect individual RTBA. But that's debatable.
What's not debatable is that the ACLU fights for ludicrous, extreme interpretations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, yet suddenly is a textualist on the Second.
The ACLU should make its motto:
The ACLU, where the Constitution is a means, not an end.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
You ought to consider also that the Bill of Rights does NOT grant rights to the people (in fact, the founders clearly believed that rights were innate to human beings, and that the state can only take them away). The ninth amendment states this principle explicitly. Therefore, even if #2 says that the right to bear arms is granted to people that are part of a militia (which it DOES NOT), all citizens still retain the right as part of their God-given rights.
Furthermore, it was a widespread belief of the time that ALL citizens were automatically part of the "militia". Even more damning for the anti-gun crowd, "well-regulated" was generally taken to mean, not regulation by the government, but regulation from within. Substitute "well-behaved" and you will have a better modern-day translation.
eikimartinson.com
So they decided to add censorship to their reputation. There's good planning. Follow one stupid move with another. File this one in the What Were They Thinking? folder.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Are they really blocking pro-gun sites?
Man, they're really threatening your freedom here.
Every man should have the right to have enough weapons to blow away their family, friends, co-workers and total strangers - including the kid's schoolmates.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
"Then why doesn't censorware block the web sites of PG-13(tm) and R(tm) rated movies under the "Typical" settings the way it blocks gun-safety sites under the "Typical" settings?"
Because that's not what parents are clamouring for. Simple as that.
GL
FYI, Handgun Control, Inc. IS the Brady Campaign. They are one and the same.
-- Will program for bandwidth
What is the murder rate in Switzerland?
In 1994 they had 7,021,000 people and 27.2% of all households had guns. Total firearm homicide per 100k people was 0.58. Homicide was 1.32.
How about france and belgium? In both of which guns are readily available (IIRC, at least until recently a "gun permit" in belgium required going down to the local police station).
0.6 and 1.41 for belgium. 16.6% of all households own guns.
0.44 and 1.12 for France, 22.6% of all households own guns.
So let's see what Norway's like:
32% of all households have guns.
0.30 and 0.97, respectively.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Thanks for the US v. ALA information. As the article states, "the devil remains in the details," and a second challenge to the law as applied would be needed.
if an adult wanted unfettered access to the Internet in a public library, he could ask to have the filters removed, and the library could remove them.
The library "could remove them" or "would be obligated to remove them"?
case
People who rely on public libraries for Web access typically cannot afford to finance the sort of legal representation that such a Round 2, i.e. a test case of the law as applied, would require. Or would the ALA's counsel take up these cases on the patrons' behalf?
Will I retire or break 10K?
those that think so prob don't have children.
Where did I bring children into this? Under the current law, a federally funded public library is permitted to refuse to uncensor any or all blocked material, even over an adult patron's wishes.
Will I retire or break 10K?
That hit the nail on the head, basically. People mis-understand what it is libraries are supposed to do, and be.
They are not supposed to be places where you can babysit your kids.
Why have I not had mod points for 2+ years/ Hmm.
Maybe you should try actually RESEARCHING Waco...I'd recommend the book "Cold Zero" as a start...by someone who was actually there. It's better to go to primary sources than just pick up the viewpoint of the mass media.
Hey, have you been tracking the Diebold fiasco? Here is a company that gave over $600,000 to the Republican Party (nada to the Demos), who's president visits Crawford regularly, and has his own Dubya pet name, who denies there is any problem with their software, while vigorously prosecuting websites under DMCA for publishing Diebold internal memos that state that there are serious flaws with the software, who's voting machines gave a negative 16,000 votes to Al Gore in a Florida precinct with only 2,000 registered voters, who erased all memory cards within hours of an Illinois election when the state law requires retention for 21 months, who posted "preview" results of a California election (contrary to state law) when it appeared Republicans weren't turning out -- yet this company is the second biggest supplier of voting machines in this country!
Why even bother to "sway you or your child's political views" when you can simply write the statistics and the election result directly? No "swaying" required!
If you are really concerned about civil liberty, there are a lot of things more worthy of your indignation.
Details and more at www.hightowerlowdown.org
: What Constitution?
An F-22 fighter jet is good for transporting yourself to the grocery store too.
But if all he has is a scooter (metaphorically speaking) that shocks it's user regularily once a month because of poor design, which we all know to be true of Windows, then while he might not need an F22 how about something that at least has a heater and is not human-powered?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Neither site contains much in the way of weapons, there is actually more "gun porn" on the Brady web site than on the ILA web site.
Listing only the sites that take a stance for "weapons ownership rights" and against restrictive gun laws under the "weapons" category, while not listing the sites that take a stance against these rights and for more restrictive gun laws, does appear to reflect a political agenda.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Of militia. The dictonary definition would be "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service". In the US, that would be men 18-45. Now, if that definition is the one you take then even working under a collective right standpoint, it would support individual ownership since members of the militia merely need to be people subject to the call of military service (meaning regestered for the draft).
Of course if you go for that interpretation, it would cause problems since a law along those lines would seem to violate the rqual protection clause of the 14th ammendment. However, it could be a valid view of the orignal intent since back then women weren't seen to have teh same rights as men.
To me, it seems to be intended as an individual right to gun ownership with a reason. In otherwords it says "Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the individual people of that state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." However it is interesting to think that even under a collective rights view, it still may be intended to apply to the individual.
That is of course your choice, right or wrong. I say it is wrong. Who is prepared to shoot without thinking? There is tons of reasearch and evidence that law abiding US gun owners use their guns in lawful self defense a significant number of times per year. There is also ample evidence that shows that these same people commit far fewer crimes than average.
Why do you fear law abiding citizens with guns? It seems that you are the paranoid one.
Symantec also blocks, on my corporate network, the Unitarian-Universalist website. Their explanation? SexEd. Not even just sex...but SexEd. I've already lost faith in them.
( Read More... | 737 bytes in body | 1012 of 1023 comments | yro.slashdot.org )
/. story of today <g>), start running or something - don't be half-assed and deprive your body of the food needs by going on some dead dude's for-profit diet. Or stop eating like a pig. So, to keep guns out of "less-than-ideally educated" (patent pending) people's hands (the ones I have an issue with as far as their gun ownership), something else must be done. Like, say, stop selling guns (if the bad guys can't buy guns, what do I need one for? - we have KNIVES! <g>). Because censoring won't work, and I stand against it on principle.
Wow, that must've touched a nerve or two! As much joy as news of this brings me, I believe that in order for something to hold it has to be done right. Like, if you want to lose weight (not referring to any other
Must-not-watch TV!
if you don't like how joe-bob has used said products that's one thing, don't scream at company-X.
Say the "typical" configuration of company-X's censorware product represents a strong opinion on which side of a politically controversial topic should be made available to high school students and public library patrons. If company-X recommends that the government use its product in its "typical" configuration, and its "typical" configuration represents strong political opinions, then company-X recommends that the government market those opinions to its constituency, no?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Same here, time to dump symantec. Like actors they should stick to what they are good at and keep their big nose out of politics and other people's business.
I am curious, which(european) countries outlaw firearms, I so not know of any, perhaps they are post eastern bloc countries, they had other ways to keep down crime, intense repression of all freedoms. As far as I know target shooting,shooting matches/competition hunting, and some private collecting, though with restrictions (compared to U.S.) are allowed in europe.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
The government has nukes, we have Colt .45s. The American people are way too lazy and stupid to ever try to overthrow this government. All this talk of keeping our guns in case the government gets out of hand is pure bullshit. (BTW, if the current Ashcroftian regime isn't out of hand, I don't know what is. Where are all the gun-totin', card-carrying NRA members who are supposed to be defending our rights against this government? Or are they ok because as long as the 2nd amendment is protected, they don't really care about the other ones?)
Reality has a liberal bias
Yeah, United States problem is that corporations block gun sites. Belive you me, the problem is not that your kids get too little pro-gun propaganda. The US has always used guns to supress peoples free speach all over the world. Let's focus on that, then we might discuss however Symantec is doing the right thing blocking pro-guns sites.
The school shooting in Columbine, Colorado happened just before the NRA's annual meeting and convention was scheduled to take place in Denver, Colorado.
The meeting, like most such conventions, was scheduled several years in advance, and would have been all but impossible to move.
The NRA couldn't cancel the annual meeting, they are required by law to hold the meeting every year. The NRA did cancel most of the other scheduled events.
Micheal Moore's film presented the opening remarks in a false light.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
No let's don't focus on that. The question is not has the US used guns to suppress free speech all over the world but whether Symantec is doing the right thing. No country is spotless, but even if US crimes were greater than any other nation it is an irrelevant point. If Hitler said 2 + 2 = 4 that wouldn not make it false. It doesn't matter that the US has used agression at some times in its history. What matters is how free speech should be.
The amendment means the federal government cannot ban the private ownership of handguns because the states militia needs people who know how to use guns , a well regulated militia is the province of the states. The national guard is not the militia...many states including Florida have state militias separate from the national guard. If the state of florida wants everyone to own guns and be in the militia by default thats the state of floridas business...if Florida wants to disband their militia thats all the states business.
The amendment was to protect the right of citizens to bear arms in order to guaruntee a well regulated which meant "equipped" militia.
It was an individual right...however it was also a conditional right that would be controlled by the states.
I'm glad I don't use that software. I'll stick to the corporate version of Symantec. I JUST received my concealed carry pistol permit on Saturday, and picked up my pistol just minutes after that. It really worries me that companies that say they are trying to keep our computers safe, are actually doing more to harm us. Ugh. Well, that won't make me actually give them any of my money, ever, never, nope, no way.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Keep in mind that children are a captive audience, and will still see all of the Handgun Control Inc. (Sarah Brady) propaganda, and all of the other anti-gun propaganda.
When only one side of the debate is being filtered out, when kids can get all of the "gun porn" they want online so long as they swallow it with a healthy-dose of "2nd amendment does apply to individuals" indoctrination, how can you not call that biased?
What happens when a kid goes to write a report on the Bill of Rights and all of the computers he has access to at school, at the library, and at home have this filter enabled?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled directly agaist your argument:
October 1885 Presser V. Illinois 253
The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.
We don't treat it as such? We have amended our constitution something like 27 times. Where have you been?
"It's a law like any other law. It was written in the 18th century, and it's unreasonable to expect it to be completely relevant for a modern society even with amendments."
I agree with you so far.
"I live in Denmark, where we got our first constitution in 1848. But it has been changed several times since then."
As I said above, we have changed ours many times too.
"Wouldn't it be a better use of time to discuss whether the american constitution need changing, than using all your energy trying to interpret what the founding fathers meant."
I basically agree with this too. I, and many others, believe that the Constitution should be interpreted with a view of original intent. The meaning should not be arbitrairly changed. If a certain portion is no longer relevant (I can think of several) then an amendment may be in order.
On the issue of the Second Amendment, the data clearly shows that firearms represent a net positive benefit to society so I see no reason to get rid of it.
As I illustrated elsewhere within this broader discussion, this is complete rubbish.
The reason why it gun crime makes headline news in the UK is because, in the UK, gun crime is headline news. Gun deaths are far rarer in the UK than they are in the US, hence when they occur they are newsworthy. In America, unless some lunatic has killed a dozen people or someone famous then it's not going to make the news, is it?
An average 25 year-old guy getting shot and killed is big news in Britain because it's a rare occurence but it's not even a two column news article in America because it happens every day in every state. It's that simple.
I seriously doubt that you're English or ever have been. "Since the total gun ban took effect in England?" Since what total gun ban? Effective gun control has been part of British society for almost a century. The only change in recent history was after Dumblane, when the laws governing hand guns were tightened up, which mainly effected sportsmen and -women who took part in competition shooting, not the average individual.
"The real effects of banning personal protection"? Uh, well since private hand gun ownership never really existed in the UK just how has it been banned? And, if gun crime and violent crime in general is falling in the UK (as the official sources I cited in my linked post above show), just what "real effects" are you talking about?
More complete and utter rubbish.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I agree, "It's a bit rediculus.".
Merriam-Webster:
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
You know what, that's part of raising a child. I raise my kid with my beliefs and I filter what I want to filter. You don't equal time. You do not get to enter my home and tell me what my kids should be exposed to.
I'm pro firearm and own several, but software that blocks access to pro-gun sites sounds perfectly fine to me. Although the customer should be better informed on the kinds of things that get blocked. If parents want to keep children from learning about 2nd ammendment rights, that's their business. They can raise their children as ignorant as they wish.
Obviously if every computer came pre-installed with this, I would take issue. But that's not the case.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You are missing quite a lot.
Sorry for the flame, but if they banned pro-choice sites what would you think?
Or if you are not pro-choice some other political view banned.
There are a lot of rational people on both sides of this issue, and to censor one and not the other is simply not right.
don't you mean violently pro-gun. Can you tell me if I'm on the NRA blacklist yet? I call and call, but man they're so damned stubborn.
and ya, after the NRA blacklist came out. I would hope that parents would try to keep their kids away from them. The NRA is just another violent, racist gang.
> Do you also believe your local library should stock
> Playboy on the shelves with Popular Science?
Have you looked at an issue of Playboy lately?
The "pictures of naked girls" parts of the magazine take up only a VERY small portion of the whole. And as far as nudie pictures go, they're QUITE tame compared to the bulk of the rest of the "nudie magazine" rack (pun unintended). And let's not even get STARTED compareing them to the bulk of 'net porn. Playboy's pictorals are no more, and sometimes less, risque than the nudes you'll find in the art/photography section of the library.
And when you come right down to it, there's some damn good writing in Playboy. I'm not going to lie, and say that I "JUST read the articles". But I *do* ALSO read the articles. Many of them are very good, and quite worthy of being in a library.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Why do you fear law abiding citizens with guns? It seems that you are the paranoid one.
It's not the law-abiding and responsible ones I fear. It's the ones who aren't that bother me. I would really feel more comfortable if joe psychopath couldn't get his hands on a gun, thank you, and if a thousand sane and normal individuals have to live without a gun to accomplish that, so be it.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
I've always found that being an irritating pedant can cover up for almost any lack.
Clear, Dark Skies
I always get my cow orkers to check my speeling for me.
Clear, Dark Skies
"block pro gun sites" shoot the fuckers
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus for Mac totally sucks. Harvard recommended it for all students, and I was intending to use it to scan for known trojans and for Word macro viruses. However, it peridocially (once a month or so) caused kernel panics (it installs a kext; the first I found out about this kext was from the panic logs), the UI is terrible, and the scanning is ridiculously slow. The automatic updates happen in the foreground and don't close when they're done. Same for automatic scans; the window doesn't even have a close box. It's just not worth it with so few Mac viruses and trojans. Furthermore, the uninstaller doesn't work, so you have to look all over the system for broken pieces.
When you register with Symantec, they spam you. There is a "spam me" option which is on by default. However, it is not on the registration page (or it wasn't when I registered). Instead, you can change your preferences after you register, and changes take up to 90 days to take effect. So they spammed me (for Windows products) once I registered, but didn't stop after the 90 days. Their unsubscribe links don't work either. I ended up getting rid of their spam by emailing abuse@symantec.com and threatening to report them for lying in their privacy policy.
Fortunately, Macs come with built-in ipfw, which is a very nice firewall. Basic configuration can be done with system prefs; more advanced config can be done in the shell or with third-party apps.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
To kill something it has to be living first, silly. I think even my dog gets that. Organisms which cannot survive independently of their host are not called living, they're called "virii." But then again I equate loss of liberty with sociological death (cf. slavery), so I couldn't in good conscience let any pro-life sites in either, since that would visit a metaphorical death on all those women in America who are no longer free to rule over their own body.
Also if they'd only let in anti-war and anti-death penalty sites, that would be nice too. Meaning block pro-war, pro-death penality sites. Like this one.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
You, and a lot of other people apparently, seem to be missing the point. We don't care if they block anti-gun sites also. I don't want them to, and the poster probably doesn't either. What we're outraged about is that sites solely dedicated to promoting true information and political discussion about legal gun use (hunting, target shooting, self-defense, etc), and promoting the defense of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (yes, we still have one), are lumped together with sites that may tell you how to build a bomb or homemade gun and may promote the uses of such for nefarious, illegal purposes. This is what is unacceptable to us. They are censoring only one side of a political discussion.
When it comes right down to it, the NRA and similar websites talk about the same things that that anti-gun sites talk about, i.e., guns and gun rights (gasp!). Thus if they (Symantec) followed their own insanity properly they would also lump anti-gun sites into the "weapons" category. So in the end, this really is a case of blatant anti-gun bias. The filter creators want your children to see anti-gun information even when you've told the filter you want to block "weapons" sites. They've made the political decision for you that it's OK to show your children "weapons" sites as long as they are anti-gun sites.
All I know is, Symantec products are crap, they're implementing activation features, and now this shite. It's the straw that broke this camel's back. I'll never buy or recommend another Symantec product.
Other people have made recommendations for alternatives, but here's mine anyway to help increase the signal-to-noise ratio:
Firewall: Kerio Personal Firewall
Anti-virus: AVG
(Both free for personal use.)
Opinion and choice are not the problem. The problems begin when people hold opinions so militantly they put more focus into enforcing the idea of their opinion then the idea behind their opinion.
Why do you fear law abiding citizens with guns? It seems that you are the paranoid one.
To me, remarks like these show that you're not the type that is interested in an honest resolution, but rather only interested in beating the oposition into agreement or submission. Perhaps by coincidence, many pro-gun activists have a similar attitude. This might be a good starting point in asking why anti-gun activists could feel a little uneasy.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Surely Symantec in thier clearly appointed superior role of web sensorship would filter Slashdot. After all the name does imply in their view: slash-dot 1.Strong sweeping cut made with a sharp instrument-dot 2.beat severely with a whip or rod-dot 3.To cut by striking violently and at random-dot 4.To crack or snap, as a whip-dot DUH Symantec needs to take a step back and review thier policies for filtering.
As a parent, I also want add that it is a lot easier to protect my daughter from guns, porn, drugs and whaever other devil that they are likely to conjure up than it is from a system that becomes more and more like a police state.
Why arn't people discussing how to protect thrir kids from that?
n/t
or freedom of speech. As another poster pointed out, this is not default. Its an option to filter out "violent" sites. With the NRA's hit list published online, I'm sure they count.
I'm not sure you understood the question. Windows personal firewalls can be configured to only let certain apps access the network. Let's say, only IE. So when ActiveSpyWare++ Gold decides to phone home, it gets blocked. I don't see how to do that with an external Linux firewall.
Calling a child "virii" pretty explains everything thing I need to know about you.
So you mean to tell me that the framers of the constitution. The same people who had just used civil insurrection to overthrow a tyranical government and free themselves speciicaly wrote into the constitution a law prohibiting them from owning guns, the very thing they just used to win a war? Think about that.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
That was hundreds of years ago, there's no way the founders could have anticipated the future of this country.
... maybe you should rethink that "out dated" argument
Modern communication is much easier today than it was back then. Everyone and their mother can write and publish things without a printing press. There's complete anonmity and no accountability. It's much easier to spread lies and information that is dangerous to people. The founders sure as hell didn't anticipate anrchists having websites accessable from every school building.
The problem with the US is that there are a lot of paranoid voters who only care about one issue. Pro-Free speech groups are quite happy to vote all their rights away.
Besides, do you really think you being able to say what you want is going to change anything? When push comes to shove, the government can lock you up and ductape your mouth.
Down with free speech.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I would suggest you go look up the context of those quotes. It might save you from looking like an ass.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I would be more concerned if I saw someone actively engaged in reading an article titled:
"The dehumanizing of chickens"
or
"Preventing death by eating veggies"
in fact, I would feel much safer in a world where every able bodied adult owned, carried and was trained in the proper use of a firearm.
Why?
Because if I get mugged or some crime occurs, you can be damn sure they aren't getting very far before they're being tracked by 20 guns.
Ever notice no one robs a gun show?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The ACLU has taken a lot of crap for defending arbitrary constitutional rights of groups and individuals that are as far removed from "leftist" ideals as possible. Being obviously more familiar with the ACLU's past behavior, I'm reasonably certain that their position on this issue is that the behavior of the filtering software is reprehensible.
That said, the whole issue hardly has any constitutional implications until some gorvernment agency becomes involved. Neither the NRA nor Symantec qualify.
I am selling of the rest of my pistols and getting a cross bow. (NOT) I quit the NRA. They are about electing Republicans and not about protecting the 2nd amendment. If they were about protecting the 2nd amendment they would without a doubt support Libertarians. Even John Dean is not for Federal gun control. (The NRA gave him a high rating too when he was running for governor.) The NRA will not back him even with his strong pro gun ownership bonafides. It's all about electing Republicans. Symatec is hosed up. Whoever wastes money on their crap deserves what they pay for. That said they are restricting political sites if they are blockinng the NRA's website as it's all about politics and very little about firearms. Their magazines are about firearms their web site is all about politics.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
heh. this one's getting copy-pasted for my collection. Good parody, man.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Americans Flock to Get on NRA Blacklist The NRA initially denied compiling a blacklist as such, saying it was merely responding to members wanting to know which individuals and corporations opposed the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment on the right to bear arms. But National Rifle Association Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre said of the list last week; "Our members don't want to buy their songs, don't want to go to their movies, don't want to support their careers." And there was a study done on school aged children and eddie eagle. Kids who went through the eddie eagle program were much more likely to play with guns. Due to a false sense of security given by worthless "safety" lessons.
There is no way that the Saudi subjects could have gained control of either aircraft, or the one that hit the Pentagon, had the citizens been armed.
Oh really. You are a good enough shot that you'd pick off the terrorist while he's got a box cutter to the pilot's throat? Who's gonna fly the plane with no pilot? (plus, what if the highjackers had guns too...)
That was the trump card that got played, and it worked. In fact it looks like the only reason we still have a White House is because of AirPhone. Don't try to turn it into some weird gun issue.
....your definitely one of those people who are missing the point....it keeps doing flyby's but you never seem to quite catch it.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
I also thing the sam thing goes for Pro and Anti-Drugs sites
Anyone have an objection to that ?
Same goes for Hacking Anti-Hacking, Porn & Fight-Porn sites ..
Why shouldn't Pro-Gun sites be classed as such ??
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I recommend the Tiny Personal Firewall. Gives you much better control than Norton.
This comment does not exist.
Do you also believe your local library should stock Playboy on the shelves with Popular Science?
In a hypothetical library that can afford an infinite number of magazine subscriptions, the shelves should contain every magazine that exists. I don't care whether they're science journals or naked pictures or political propaganda or gun advocacy, it should all be equally available.
Raising your child is your responsibility, not mine. If you don't think your child is mature enough for a particular kind of literature-- be it a skin mag or a book by Dave Barry-- don't let him go to the library alone, and be aware of what he reads.
You should also keep an eye on what the kid sees in the local bookstore, and Blockbuster Video, and the Internet, and on TV, and anywhere else he might run into things you think he shouldn't. I know this has gone out of fashion here in America, with our new "it takes a village" philosophy of making everyone raise our kids because we're too lazy to do it ourselves. But I'd like to return to the old fashion, that concept called "being a responsible parent." If nothing else that seemed to spawn fewer lawsuits.
I will never buy another Symantec product again, if this is true. I don't care whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun, this is wrong.
Well one could take it a step further, if one were so inclined. A retaliatory strike. One could deprive they of some of there rights, and more likely to get noticed, profits. Grab some of there stuff and burn a CD-R spindle worth of copies and sprinkle them around town, or up 'em on your favortie P2P.
Yes I know 2 wrongs don't make it right, but goddamn it I am PISSED and it would make it even. If we take this and don't push the button (economicly speaking) then they will continue to do what they are doing, putting a little pressure on they is the only way to get em to listen. A boycott is a good first step.
[tinfoil_hat_time]
Thinking about it there are so few people out there that would take part it would probibly do little. The powers that be know this, take a look at madison ave. and all the money and time and eggheads that have gone into the science of advertising and marketing. Applied psychlogy. Think that the layout of supermarkets and minimarts is by chance? Or that staple items like milk, eggs, bread are in the back of the store while items like candy, batteries, magazines are near checkout? This Symantec thing is another fine example of this only with a different target. They are not trying to get the population to buy something, they are trying something far more seroius. They are trying to change social norms. Try watching the U.S. (other contries may be different YMMV) and then read up indetail about the story. Pick a good polotical hot button story like the Iraq thing. Then take a look at the came story on Aljazzera news. You should get a spread of spin. The Symantec bit is just one more attempt to spin the populations social norms and should be stopped. By not standing up and taking a stand and saying "NO" you are saying yes.
[/tinfoil_hat_time]
Hum hum. You don't have been hit by Blaster... It was fun to see how the couple Blaster/Antivirus reacted each others.
:(
1) Blaster infect
2) Blaster scan a little
3) Antivirus disinfect
4) Antivirus send information to a central server
5) Wash, rince and repeat step 1
Do that on a network with 2000+ computers. The antivirus has done nothing good in our case. And yes we are behind a firewall. But put some laptop in the equation and you get the receipt of the catastroph
anti-social and violent.
its hard keeping up with all the gun nut spin on the internet. Also, there's been many stories in American newspapers. Some mayors encourage their police forces to underreport crimes so they can get more funding.
the organized and the unorganized. "well-regulated" most likely means the organized. SCOTUS has twice ruled that the organized militia means the State/National Guards. That was in 1965 and 1990. Not specifically 2nd Amendment cases. But they are part of the case law.
Replacing words does not make an argument, and case law is pretty straight foreward concerning the 2nd Amendment. "A well-regulated militia," is not a subordinate clause. Its the main clause of the sentence. Which is how people were taught to write in 17th and 18th century. Miller said that the purpose of the second amendment was to preserve the "organized militia", whihc SCOTUS has twice said is the National/State guards. The fight here isn't about the word people. Its about the words "well regulated militia" and "right to keep and bear arms," Silvera v Lockyer from the 9th circuit goes into greater details on this. "well-regulated militia" has to be the organized militia, and "right to keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with personal firearm ownership, its about "keeping guns ready in an armory and bearing arms in military formation." Under the leadership of either the States governor or the President. And this has nothing to do with political agendas. It has everything to do with the fact that the NRA is lying violent political lobby working for even scummier people in the gun industry and the Republican party. The NRA even posts its own black list, or is it a hit list, on the internet.
Natural Rights? Bullshit, long ago discarded on the trash heap of philosophy. And "well-regulated militia" must mean the "organized militia" wihch SCOTUS has twice ruled is the National and State Guards.
the 2nd Amendment was about keeping the Federal government from disarming state militias. which is what SCOTUS said in US v Miller, and the 9th Circuit re affirmed in Silver v Lockyer. The SCOTUS has also twice ruled that the "organized militia" defined in the constitution is the State/National Guards. And instead of disarming the State/National Guards the federal government acutally gives them millions every year in new and used equipment.
The national guard is military, not militia. They report to the Department of the Army and are under active service. Thus, not a militia by definition.
one was pre incorporation doctrine, which might make it unusable from most peoples POV, US v Miller said that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve the state militias, which SCOTUS has also upheld is the State/National Gaurds. Silvera v Lockyer was a 9th circuit case that is probably going to become the standard case law for future 2nd Amendment cases.
Citing US v. Miller by itself doesn't prove your point, because it seems to quote a bunch of stuff from the 17th and 18th centuries saying that the militia is "all able-bodied males" and stuff like that. Miller is also a strange decision to cite because it states that "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," which would seem to imply that it could have been decided differently if the weapon in question was, for example, a fully-automatic assault rifle.
Oh really. You are a good enough shot that you'd pick off the terrorist while he's got a box cutter to the pilot's throat? Who's gonna fly the plane with no pilot?
Surely the point is that, even if the plane crashed (the people on the aircraft would have died anyway), it *WOULDN'T HAVE HIT THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE*!
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Well, lets see.... drugs use is illegal unless prescribed by a doctor, so blocking pro-drug-use sites is a no-brainer. Porn obviously should not be viewable by minors, so those sites should also be filtered. But pro-gun sites? Nothing illegal about owning a gun, unless your a felon. Our founding fathers thought the right to own a gun was pretty important, in fact, they thought it was so important they put it into our Bill Of Rights, second only to the freedom of speech. So, your sarcasm about being shocked that those sites are blocked, only shows your not thinking the issue through.
in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia That right there screws any individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Its not strange to cite Miller, its been the standard for 2nd Amendment in the courts for years. And no it has nothing to do with the weapon because the SCOTUS has refused to take any of the appelate cases concerning the AWB. Which means they haven't changed their mind since Miller was written.
Geez, nobody mentioned squidGuard yet?
I think that banning access to sites from a software privace control centre in a package is insecurity and politics. One would have to question the selection of this issue by Symantec, and also what *bad* industries that they have neglected to ban in the process of putting guns on the list? People who are into guns are people that would always have been prone to loving guns. Another poster said that if they were giving lessons on how to shoot someone, then OK, perhaps theres a genuine reason to ban it, but this is not the case here. If I managed to see the NRA site (which I haven't), I would not expect anything other than myself to be fueled with anger at the face of charlton heston. It would make me hate guns even more. The same for anyone else I think. So, yeah ! This is wrong and we really do have to question the moral highground of Symantec here. Why do they feel that they have the right to do this and what sort of business decision is this on their part? Also, while in some places you can't change the privacy control, on many machines you can overide the settings - so I suspect that people like me will always have nearly uncensored content allowed. Unfortunately, the kids won't be able to hate the NRA yet because many of them won't have access to their site !!!!!
All that says is that the states cannot prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms...it does not say the states cannot regulate this. Hunting is not protected under the 2nd amendment.
By the way your quote left off a line
after the word powers and before the phrase the states. "even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view", the court was not making a direct 2nd amendment argument but an argument for maintainng a militia reserve. The Federal government can waive that right.
Tyranical Government ? You mean the settlers who had grown rich through exploiting the land and from slavery decided they didn't want to pay any more taxes to the British Crown.
Luckily the French were on hand to provide a professional army and navy which was just as well since the poorly equipped and badly trained settlers were being cut to pieces by the professional army of the English.
Close those ports and get a REAL firewall. :-D
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
If your site is anything like the site I admin, I agree. The gun nuts look at NRA/gun related sites and the "normal non-gun nut" people surf porn.
Company A Sells software B that won't show web sites of type C. Person D then does not buy Software B.
Isn't this why we have a "free market?"
Yea I read the part about the poor libraries that will be "forced" to use this software...I'll go out on a limb and say that they probably have a black/white list option where a librarian could add these banned sites back in.
Contrary to popular thought the world is only out to get you if you want it to.
Apple free since 1990!
Conversely, the Swiss are armed to the teeth and gun violence there is very rare. It's just that Anglo-Saxons will fight with whatever they've got - fists, knives or firearms - over pretty much any disagreement, but your average European will just make a rude gesture and forget about it.
I'm always amazed by how many posts gun stories attract on Slashdot though!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I would really feel more comfortable if I could teleport instead of having to risk traffic accidents and plane crashes.
That ain't gonna happen in the real world, either.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, emphisis added by me:
**No state shall, without the consent of Congress**, lay any duty of tonnage, ***keep troops***, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
If my argument isn't obvious, I'll shed some light for you. If states are not allowed to keep troops without consent of Congress, how can the right for state militias to bear arms NOT be infringed? Ergo, the 2nd Amendment CANNOT apply to state militias, and must apply to civilian militia made up of the citizens of the United States.
--Demonspawn
Good, good, I'm glad to see that I managed to find some idiot who was prepared to imply that passengers should be allowed to carry arms on planes.
I recommend you always plead the 5th as you are able to jetison all credibility within 2 sentences. (Of course, being anonymous gives you no credibility to start with.)
OK, lets change all the rules - lets permit passengers to be armed on planes. Fine. In your country (or the US if they're different). Go for it. Particularly on those flights with free booze. Great. Go for it. The rest of the world can sit back and watch the news reports as they roll in.
YAW.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
No, they are censoring pro-weapons related sites. There's a link to buy a gun on the MAIN page of nra.org.
Yeah, can't be reading those websites that have an opposing view.
By the way, if you knew anything about federal law, you'd realize that in order for a sale to happen, a licensed (FFL) dealer must transact the sale on both sides. You cannot do mail order any other way.
If they are 18 or over, and can show ID to an FFL licensed dealer, then by all means they can buy a weapon. There's nothing wrong with that.
But since they are under 18 theoretically, they cannot. Checks and balances are great things.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
a colonial reenactor once told me that w.r. is a shooting term, referring to the ability to concentrate fire on an enemy.
this requires not only the posession of arms, but also the skill to use them, which is aquired only by constant practice, which in turn requires constant posession.
the reenactor also said militiamen were expected to supply their own arms, so handing out arms from the militia's armory to unskilled citizens is explicitly _not_ what the founders intended.
Find yourself any old POS machine (486 or better please) a little bit of RAM, a gig or two for a hard drive (The bigger the more stuff you can log) a 3.5" floppy drive and a pair of NIC's D-link or Intel are the one's I like, Intel are best but D-link are nice and cheap. Then hit ftp.openbsd.org and get the single floppy installer. You might need some help the first time through setting it all up but an OpenBSD firewall running NAT and DNSSpoof to redirect all the crap websites (and gator) to 127.0.0.1 is the best way to go. And best of all - "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!" Gotta write up a PDF or html on how to set this up properly for the not so technically inclined. To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman
First off, I am a lawyer, so I am well aware of the law involved, and that the Constitution only applies to governmental actors. Of course, the ACLU does get involved in a lot of private conduct, and much of civil rights law pertains to non-governmental action. And the ACLU litigates matters way beyond the scope of what most would define as "liberties."
But I don't recall ever suggesting that the ACLU should get involved. The thread was discussing the ACLU's inconsistency WRT the Second Amendment. I didn't start the thread; I just commented on it.
Of course, you never address the merits of what I wrote. Maybe next time you'll read through the thread before flaming.
Idiot.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
there's no pro or con about it. They post a "hit list" online, they have quite a bit of information on ohw to use guns. The gun control sites don't do that. Hell most information on gun control sites is news and legal information. On the NRA site and other pro gun sites its all about ow to use guns, how to get guns, what to do if some "gun grabbing libral teacher comes to take your gun away,"
-------------------
"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. "
-------------------
So you're saying that censorware blocked one side and not the other? DUH, what part of CENSORWARE did you miss when you fired it up? Censoring weapons does not NECESSARILY imply censoring ALL text about weapons else you block news sites discussing a murder by gunshot. So obviously you draw a line in the sand somewhere and only block the 'bad' side of the line. Oh yeah, did I mention that line drawing/definition of 'bad' aren't terribly objective operations.
So let's block porn. That means sex right, so let's block all the sites related to birth control too. Oh, yeah and nudity, so let's block the mamagram sites and any reproductive health/anatomy related medical sites.
What everyone wouldn't draw the line there? Someone MIGHT disagree, damn how strange. Gee, MAYBE the guy writing/supplying the DB for the censorware product is using his/her own viewpoint on where the line goes and JUST MAYBE that view is slightly biased, at least from your view (then again, maybe not).
Danger Wil Robinson Danger, using subjective software written by others may not provide the same subjective filtering you want.
DUH!
My god people isn't that the ENTIRE reason that the discussion of censorware vs. freedom of expression has reached the pitch it has. Isn't that one of the main issues with CIPA type laws. Am I the only one who's reality check hasn't bounced?
Besides, do you really think that guns and rifles would do anything against tanks and aircraft? If push comes to shove, an armed militia attempting to rebel would be classified as a "terrorist cell" and picked off by snipers or incinerated with an air-fuel bomb.
This dosn't appear to be the case in Iraq where militiamen have killed an average of one US soldier a day since the war supposedly ended. Some of these Iraqi militias have anti-aircraft weapons, want to bet that none of them have anti-tank weapons...
I have often said to my wife (only half jokingly) that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans are for the rich, and tell you they are for the rich, while the Democrats are for the rich, and tell you they are for the poor.
This is closely related to another of my favorite quotes (which could also be applied to Democrats vs Republicans) : In Communism, Man takes advantage of his fellow man, in Capitalism, it's the other way around.
Imply what you will about my political affiliations.
Since we're going this way, anyone with geir in their username should be anal raped on sight, yup that'll help.
Imply what you will about my political affiliations
I would guess that you're cynical enough to vote republican (or libertarian) on the pretense that if you can't save the world at least you're voting your own pocketbook. And you would be voting according to your own financial interests, too. If you're making, say, a quarter mil a year or better.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
I really didn't expect a response on that point, but I'm not sure if you are engaging in discourse, or trying to sling mud at someone who disagrees with your political leanings. I'll assume the former. Actually, I think in my 12 years of political life, I've only voted for one Repubilcan or Libertarian when I had another choice (the exception being Bob Dole in 1996). In the 2000 election, I think most people decided to vote for the lesser of two evils (and for the record I believe we got the lesser of two evils with Bush), but I think people who vote for the lesser of two evils are part of the problem (partially caused by our voting system, and partially caused by people who believe that voting for the lesser of two evils can be considered civic duty.) In 2000 I voted for Nader. Not because I believed firmly in his causes (I generally oppose his causes), but because I generally believe that he is doing what's right for the people he represents, rather than what is politically expedient. If Jerry Brown or Jessie Ventura ran for President, I would probably vote for them as well. I think the point I was trying to get across is that many people believe that if you vote third party, you are wasting your vote. I believe, instead, that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, that vote is truly wasted.
I really didn't expect a response on that point, but I'm not sure if you are engaging in discourse, or trying to sling mud at someone who disagrees with your political leanings
I took a long stab toward guessing your political persuasion and probably, in retrospect, should have kept my big mouth shut.
I also voted for Nader in 2000 (in Wisconsin where thank goodness Bush didn't win so I can still sort of sleep at night). I don't for a second believe that Bush is the lesser evil. I think he's a horrible president, perhaps the worst one in my lifetime. Jerry Brown, there's a name I haven't heard in a while. Yeah, I might vote for him. But not if he were running independent against a Democrat and Bush. No way. I'm voting for the Democrat this time. Even if it's Joe freakin' Lieberman!
In any case, forgive my uncalled for outburst. I just got done reading Joe Conason's Big Lies: The right-wing propaganda machine and how it distorts the truth and Al Franken's Lies and the lying liars who tell them: A fair and balanced look at the right. So I'm chock-full of Liberal ammo!
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
As noted in a earlier post, the Supreme Court has the Silvera before it. They may take it. They haven't taken a 2nd Amendment case since Miller (1939 - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=307&invol=174). Miller is especially interesting because there was NO defense presented.
s .pdf
t m
s .pdf
r .pdfu s.pdfe .pdfp df
p
d f
Before you opine further as to whether it's a right or not: READ the legal briefs the Supremes are considering.
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/cert.pdf
Amicus ("Friend of the Court") brief by Women Against Gun Control: http://www.wagc.com/WAGC-AMICUS-BRIEF.pdf
Amicus by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO): http://www.jpfo.org/jpfobrief.pdf
Amicus by the NRA (finally joining the effort after trying to stop--yes, STOP--it): http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/NRA_amicu
Amicus by The Pink Pistols (a gay group): http://www.pinkpistols.org/sjc/SilveiravLockyer.h
Amicus by The Second Amendment Sisters: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/SAS_amicu
Amicus by Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws (for some reason given in peices:
(cover) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_cove
(brief) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_amic
(table) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_tabl
(proof of service) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_pos.
Now, here's where it gets REAL interesting. The State of California didn't respond. They filed no brief! For some reason, the Supremes didn't just refuse to hear it (like they did the Emerson case), they required California to file a brief. This indicates they are thinking of taking this case up! http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/SCtReq.as
So, California filed their brief: http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/OppCert.pdf
and, finally, The Reply to California's Opposition Brief in Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment Lawsuit: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/CAreply.p
Now, whichever side you're on: READ before you opine, please!
READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
Enough arguing. Go to the law.
:
s _search.pl ?title=10&sec=311
U.S. Code : Title 10
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/t
READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
OS X 10.3 can run all your usual applications inc M$ Office
M$ Office is not my usual application.
less is more
Here we go again...
...gov't sanctioned murders of their own population were the number one cause of human death last century.
> > But because I don't think about shooting people with guns. Period."
> Do you have children?
Children are more likely by a huge measure to be injured by a gun accident than by an assailant. Also, the number of times where easy access to a gun would prevent injury to a child is vanishingly small. Sorry, but your statement does more for gun control than against it.
> In my state it is legal to shoot someone to prevent them from killing or causing serious bodily harm to another, or to prevent a sexual assualt. (IANAL) I think it is scary that there are people out there who would rather a person be killed, maimed, or raped than for them to fight back effectively.
The number of situations where being in such a situation, having a firearm in such situations, and being able to deploy it properly and effectively all come together are so small that it's not even worth considering. The vast majority of situations in which a person will find himself/herself do not warrant the use of a firearm. The average person on the street is more likely to get into a situation where using deadly force is inappropriate than appropriate. People who carry guns are (understandably) more likely to use them. Gun training is not mandatory, and even if a person takes a gun training course most courses do not deal with situational analysis so people don't learn when using a gun is a good idea, and when it isn't.
The simple fact is that using a firearm is intrinsically dangerous, and in ways that most people, including you by the sound of your screed, do not understand. Based on FBI statistics, you are one hundred times more likely to die in a holdup if you draw a firearm than if you leave it in your pocket, but if you were in a convenience store and a gunman pulled his piece, I'd bet my life you'd pull yours. More importantly, the "one hundred times" measure applies to everyone else in the store with you, so if I'm in the store with you your posession of a gun directly reduces my chances of surviving the holdup. Don't tell me that you'd never have to worry about missing, because despite the fact that it's utter bullshit (marksmen miss sometimes) you can't tell me which of your rounds is mispacked and won't fire properly or when your gun will jam. The simple fact is that the vast, vast majority of people do not know how to use a gun safely (which includes knowing when not to use it), so your statement of fighting back effectively is incorrect.
>
Back this up with something, please. It's a complete lie.
> If only someone would invent a device that would allow even the weak amoung us to be able to fight off one or more tough thugs... it would have to be easy enough to use that it could be mastered with little practice, since most people don't have all day to spend practicing martial arts... it would be have to be reliable... easy to mass produce... storable... hmmm... What a boon to the downtrodden masses of mankind that would be. I wonder what such a device would look like.
Well, it certainly wouldn't look like a pistol. Anyone who thinks that a handgun takes only a little practice is an idiot, you included. Reliable? You're sadly mistaken. You think you can take on multiple opponents with a handgun with just a little training? You think thugs don't use them too? You think that someone who only owns a gun to "defend themselves" is likely to be able to do it effectively, particularly in close quarters? I've fired literally millions of rounds. My target skills are quite well honed, and I would never consider carrying a gun around with me, because I know that it's much, much more likely to be a net detriment to me than a net benefit. It's easy to say that it only takes once for me to need it, but then it only takes once for me to pull it at the wrong time, or get it taken from me, or shoot a bystander by mistake. Sorry, but you're the best argument for gun control I've seen in a long time.
Don't be an idiot. Do you honestly think that out of the entire Bill of Rights, out of that listing of nothing but rights guaranteed to the people, the framers inserted one stupid amendment which has no effect but to guarantee the GOVERNMENT the right to keep military weapons?!? Why do that? Why write such an guarantee, and why place it smack in the middle of a list of individual rights? What government has ever felt the need for such an amendment? What government has ever wanted weapons, but felt constrained by the lack of constitutional authorization? The idea is simply absurd.
If you don't like guns, fine, suggest that the founders had it wrong, and that a new amendment is necessary. At least be honest about the fact that you think in a way completely unlike the American revolutionaries. But don't try to distort history, language, and logic so far as to completely reverse the real meaning of the constitution. Of course, you'll then have to advance real arguments against guns, which will be hard work, and we will just see through them anyway...
eikimartinson.com
I'd be pleased to see PLAYBOY, PENTHOUSE LETTERS and even HUSTLER right next to POPULAR MECHANICS, not to mention THE ETHICAL SLUT. Sorry, but I do want my kids, and the kids they will play with when I'm not there to supervise, to have access to the best information available.
I remember PLAYBOY providing quite a few clues about reality when I was a kid, things you and your ilk were too afraid to teach me. Thank the Great Maker I also knew a few adults (including my MD) who would tell the truth.
I'd be afraid to send a kid to public school in these days of political correctness. That's why there's home schooling, and why teacher's unions fight for job security for senionr teachers above all else, for they can see the writing of parental discontent on the wall.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
I was responding to this policy statement by the ACLU, a sub-topic:
The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.
Not "Let's explain why the ACLU won't get invloved [sic] in this."
I am well aware that for the Constitution to apply, (with one notable exception) state action is required.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Hi! I get to metamoderate somebody's moderation rating that this article was flamebait. While I don't think it was insightful, and in fact I think it was wrong-headed but don't plan to get into the argument here, I also don't think it's fair to call it flamebait. So I'm metamoderating the "flamebait" rating as "Unfair".
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
In another response, you said:
You make two claims:- That a bullet can depressurize the aircraft, and
- Depressurization can cause airframe failure.
Both claims are false. The incident of Aloha Airlines flight 243 demonstrates conclusively that the second is false. To prove that the first is false, all you have to know is that the maximum speed of a confined stream of gas is the speed of sound in the gas. Given that the speed of sound in air at room temperature is about 1100 feet per second and that a bullet hole would be much less than one square inch in area, it is elementary to calculate that the rate of air loss would be several seconds per cubic foot. Such a trivial rate of loss would be made up by the pressurization systems without noticing.As for what happened to Payne Stewart, you might consider that he was flying on a Learjet (vastly smaller cabin volume) and was also probably flying at a considerably higher altitude. The fact that the cabin pressure regulator valves had been serviced shortly before the crash ought to be a clue about how important they are. A half-inch hole wouldn't be a problem even in such a small jet aircraft. For a turbocharged piston plane like a Piper Malibu or a Cessna P210, it might be another matter, but not for a Lear.
Last, the unarmed passengers on the plane which went down in Pennsylvania were sufficient to foil the hijackers' plans; had the hijackers not been intent on dying, the passengers would have retaken the plane. If you consider the post-9/11 calculus of resistance, even if the hijackers (immigrants, several of them on watch lists) had been armed it would have been far more likely that they would have lost an armed confrontation against armed passengers. The best weapon they could get today is surprise, and once they try to seize hostages or storm the cabin the element of surprise is gone.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Symatech did what if they decide to block /. ?
that OK with you?
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
The kid is 90% born except for the head (they turn it around) then they put a needle in and suck out the brain Oh yeh non living.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
if Bill Gates had said something to the effect of "It's not the windows users that bother me ,but we must filter out all references to Open Source Software" (wait he already did) Would that get your panties in a wad?
The issue is does any Corporation have the right to censor the internet?
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
You can buy a gun as easily in Glascow as in Atlanta better selection too more full autos for sale
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
Many good points, I'll give you that. And will admit that my ignorance in some technical area is showing.
;)
My point about it not being safe for passengers to be armede on aircraft still stands though. Way back up the line, the REAL original poster claimed 9/11 would not have happened if even one of the passengers had been armed. The subsequent poster claimed, in rather angry terms, that this whole thing about "depressurization" was a myth. I tried to debunk that idea by showing on incident where the rapid depressurization caused a catastrophic failure of an aircraft. Now, I might be wrong about a bullet causing such depressurization, but it can still happen and it can be dangerous. I also didn't mention things like bullets damaging vital systems like hydraulics or electrical.
How about this. Instead of arming passengers (or even pilots), how about making it impossible to enter the cabin with locked, bullet proof doors so that hijackers can't commadeer a plane in the first place. Hijackers woould need to resort to "social engineering" to enter the cabin...fake bombs (as they did during 9/11)...threatening to and acutally killing flight crew and passengers (as they did during 9/11).but if they can't get into the cabin, they can't use the plane as a missle. And then the unarmed passengers can retake the plane (as they almost did in 9/11). Give the flight crew the ability to reduce the air pressure and make everyone except themselves unconcious long enough to land the plane (wait, can't they already do that).
There are lots of other options that can be done that would reduce or eliminate the threat of a 9/11 type hijacking before resorting to letting armed civilians on a plane.
As for Aloha Airlines flight 243, that incident is the exception, rather than the rule. Had it not been for the skill of the pilot, that plane would most certainly have gone down.
anyway, nice to have a civil discussion. And I thought this thread was going to get nasty
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
The argument against guns and LEGAL gun owners is based on individuals that are obviously insecure with the laws of the state. We as U.S. citizens have the right to own guns for whatever LEGAL purpose that suit us. This right is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. The laws of the state provide protection against individuals that abuse their right to own firearms and are punished for their ILLEGAL actions. With that said, any company that interjects it's political opinion in the way it's product behaves, specifically blocking sites that educate the population on LEGAL gun use, should boycotted by ALL U.S. citizens. To all of the individuals that think gun control stops crime WAKE UP, you efforts are better spends strengthening the laws that punish the CRIMINALS and putting more law enforcement on the streets to protect the population regarding ANY CRIME with or without the use of a gun. I did not have any polarity on this subject, until now. After reading the volumes of crap regarding individuals wanting to shred the Constitution I have decided to Renew my membership with the NRA. It is obvious that gun owners have to protect their right against individuals that want to micro-manage the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Maybe all of you that want to eliminate guns should pony up and finish the job by turning the U.S. into a governed state that gives you no rights whatsoever and gives you the security blanket and binkey you so obviously want. WAKE UP, freedom should be all encompassing, you can't pick and choose which freedoms you want and those you don't want. In the end there will be no freedom at all.
So you weren't responding to the actual topic, and got pissed when I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were. Understood.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
A few bullet holes are several orders of magnitude smaller than than a cargo door.
Airliners have multiple independent electrical systems. Ditto hydraulic systems. And if you think that a frangible bullet is going to have enough oomph to take out a stainless hydraulic line after taking on a sheet-metal floor, you probably have never shot anything with one. I have. They do a pretty good job of dumping energy fast and not penetrating much. You mean, the way El Al did long before 9/11? Oh, of course. But relying on any one measure to guarantee that it can't happen again is just asking for some clever terrorist to find a way around it and make fools of us again. Broad but thin defenses fail "brittle"; what you want is a "defense in depth", where bypassing one layer comes up against deeper layers. sigh Again, you missed the point. A nearly-instantaneous decompression did not bring the aircraft down. The air leaks from a few bullet holes, or even a lost window, would not pose any threat to the airworthiness of an airliner, in direct contradiction to your thesis.Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Only one problem- Symantec, like every other commercial filtering software vendor, does not publish their list of blocked sites, does not make any particular political or religious slant of their filtering public, and will sue anybody who reverse-engineers their blocking list.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
...in trying to underhandedly determine which point of view is 'acceptable' to present to those poor, innocent, unwashed masses out there...
I realize that the only recourse I have is to send a message with my wallet. I will never buy another Symantec product again until they change their opinion on what is fundamentally a tool, capable of either being used morally or mis-used.
Good or evil depends on the use the tool is put to.
For the record, I'm a peace-loving Canadian, who envies the hell out of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the united States, but wishes that there was more being done to protect its literal interpretation, as in Vermont and Alaska.
Places where the citizenry are armed and capable of self-defense are less attractive to criminals. For proof of the corrolary of this, see crime rates in Britain and Australia, pre- and post-ban.
Note that Britain of 100 years ago had few to no laws concerning guns at all (only the criminal mis-use of them), and some of the lowest rates of crime in human history. Any free man at the time could walk into a shop, purchase gun and ammunition, and walk out, weapon loaded and concealed. And muggings were surprisingly rare...
Up until 1973, any Canadian citizen could go to the sporting goods / firearms section or hardware counter of their local department store, purchase any rifle or shotgun, and ammunition to go with it, and all without any sort of paper permit required at all. And the crime now known as 'home invasion' was unheard of.
Symantec needs to get their head on straight.
That's bull shit man, I have NIS04 since it came out and am able to visit any of these sites. Maybe you should ask your ISP why they blocked those sites...
http://www.xixidu.net/
Look, I'm not disagreeing with any of your points. Especially concerning El Al and bullet proof doors. I'm quite certain El Al doesn't let passengers carry firearms either. So why don't we do it like El AL?
I guess what it boils down to is that there is simply no way you are going to convincing me that anyone other than a highly-trained Air Marshall should have a firearm on a plane. Period.
So maybe I'm wrong about the bullet hole bringing down the plane - I never claimed to be an aircraft expert. But despite what you seem to indicate, I have fired a few guns in my time. Not at sheet metal, but mostly at deer and moose. I am fully aware of what a bullet can do, and how it disapates its energy etc. I have used guns enough to know that letting a relatively untrained civilian handle one in the confines of an aircraft is just not a good idea. So maybe it won't bring the aircraft down. But it can certainly hurt a lot of people in the passenger cabin, including innocent people or flight crew. And if I were a terrorist, I would get on the plan unarmed, pick out the people who are armed, wait for one of them to have a few drinks and disarm them while they are in the john. Now I'm a terrorist with a gun on an airplane.
sigh I guess you have also missed the point. this is 2003 not 1872. Not everyone needs to be packing to keep you safe. You might even make air travel MORE dangerous. If you are so sure that firing a gun on an aircraft is not dangerous, try it next time your cruising a 32 000 ft. Heck, just knock out a window.
El Al has it right. and they don't allow guns on the aircraft either.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
The militia is all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45, with a few additional sets of people included.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Sure. Any competant person could have.
Oh, and you don't need a pilot to fly a 767. Seriously, you just program in the runway code for the runway you want to land into the autopilot and it will land itself. most pilots do it this way these days as the autopilot is quite good.
And air traffic control could talk you thru setting up the autopilot to land the plane.
Even if the terrorists had had guns, the hijackings would have been stopped... they were in the minority.
9/11 is a DIRECT result of stopping americans from flying with guns (Which, until the 70s, they did regularly.)
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
You are the idiot. That he took a position you can't comprehend does not undermine his credibility, just yours.
Fact of hte matter is there is a bar in every town and people can drive with guns and beer in their car as much as they want, yet we don't see the wholesale destruction you claim would happen if people could fly with guns. We don't have freeway shootouts between drunken idiots.
Secretly, this is what you fear because its what you might end up doing... we all recognize that. But the reality is, responsible people don't.
Hey, and people flew for decades with guns on planes with very few problems.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Come on now. A direct result? The argument you present is more of an indirect result. 9/11 is a direct result of a good plan more than the presence or absence of firearms.
Plus, I'm not convinced that it would have been different had passengers been armed. Probably not all that many passengers would carry guns on the plane, even if they could. So I don't see a "majority" of armed passengers. And what good would it do if they didn't happen to be sitting in first class, where the action was? You don't want people just shooting willy-nilly into the cockpit... after all that might damage the magical autopilot.
Of course, had the highjackers known that the passengers might be armed, don't you think they might have done things a little differently? Like maybe destroy the radio and smash the IFF box? (Is that what they call those on civilian aircraft?) And if the passengers had the right to guns, I guarantee that every hijacker would have been armed.
I bet that the reason guns were banned from planes in the first place was to prevent hijacks. How many more hijacks do you think there might have been in the past 25 years if passengers were allowed guns? Are you saying that the consequences of allowing guns wouldn't have been worse than 9/11? How can you be sure?
Let's face it, the Rebels blew up the Death Star on 9/11. The underdogs found a chink in the armor and exploited it. It should give you hope that David, whose leader lives in a cave, still has a chance even pitted against the modern-day Goliath, the USA, that endangered species known as the World's Last Remaining Superpower. But I digress. Regardless of armed pilots, passengers, or steel doors in cockpits, it won't work again. You can only use the Trojan Horse one time.
To some degree I echo your sentiments. While I'm not wild about people on airplanes having guns, I certainly have no objection to nail clippers, knitting needles, and the occasional swiss army knife. Seriously, I could poke a hole in the side of the hull by jabbing a nice big screwdriver into the wall, so what's all the fuss? Maybe we should just handcuff everyone on board, since people can kill with their bare hands! Sheesh.
But I don't see 9/11 as a "gun issue." In fact, now that we're all wise to how they managed to pull it off, the only thing we have to do is not forget that lesson. Next time someone announces a hijack on a plane, passengers WILL storm the cockpit. Of this there is no doubt.
So, you think the passengers who storm the cockpit to prevent the next hijacking (say, by hijackers with sneaked on weapons) should be unarmed?
Even if only a few were armed, 9/11 could have been prevented.
And if the policy had stayed the way it was in the 1960s, before the government got involved-- the hijackers would have never even attempted 9/11. - cause one passenger with a gun would have made the plan too risky, even if all the hijackers had them as well.
9/11 is a direct result of the governments meddling in airline security.
Let the airlines do their own security, and they will insure tha their $100 million planes are not being hijacked, and that they don't have to pay out another half billion in claims after one is hijacked.
The government wants CONTROL, not security. The airlines want security.
That is why people are disarmed on planes-- not for security, but to give the government an excuse to violate every airline passengers 4th ammendment rights.
The fourth ammendment was written for a reason-- and whether you and I ever reach agreement, the current situation is an explicit violation of people's 4th ammendment rights (AS well as their second ammendment rights... but if the airlines took over security, as private corporations, they do have the right to require passengers to be disarmed.)
Without the constitution, we have tyranny. Since you are not willing to see the strategic argument, I have to fall back on the constitution. And there isn't much arguing with that.
I cannot prove that armed pilots and passengers would have prevented 9/11, because that would require rewinding history and letting it play out again to see what happens.
But it should be telling that the people who claim to have our security at heart are doing everything they can to prevent pilots-- people who more often than not have military training-- from having guns. And any pilot who wanted to could kill everyone aboard easily. When they won't let the pilots have guns, its obvious security is not their priority.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Good points. I do see the larger picture. However I don't think the airlines want security so much as... profits. If they'd wanted security, they would have hired competent gate screeners before 9/11. Instead they hired immigrants and paid them eight bucks an hour.
The biggest scandal of 9/11, in my opinion, is the collective sellout of security by both the feds and the airlines. There used to be government security screeners, but the airlines complained they were "too expensive." The airlines convinced the Feds that they could provide the same security services, but far cheaper.
Security is a tough job. Just look at all the damn hackers, spammers, and so on. Everyone's happy to shift the burden onto someone else. The problem is, sometimes real security is needed, and you don't get that from kids making $8 an hour at the airport.
No, the gate screeners hired before 9/11 were NOT hired by the airlines. They were hired by the FCC. That was a highly regulated industry-- not an example of what airlines want for security.
Losing one plane to a hijacking could wipe out a decades worth of profits for the airlines. They are a high capitalization, low margine business. They want security because without it they have no profits.
More security == higher profits, and they know it. That's why they maintain their planes well-- they loose one and they face bankruptcy, unless they have a lot of reserves.
You never get real security from the government-- you always get the gestapo. Look at the fact that it was easy for some college kid to violate this security, and peopel are constantly being harassed by the TSA. ITs a joke, and its become even more of a joke since they completely federalized it.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
"low margine" Ha! AS if they used real butter.
Sorry, I came off terse in that last reply-- I just get annoyed at the widespread perception that the airlines lack of concern for security is what lead to 9/11. Its a falsehood.
The government never takes responsibility for its screwups, and 9/11 was one hell of a government screw up.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
i was hoping this thread might end :) But you're incorrect about pre-9/11 gate screeners. The whole situation is pretty complicated, but the largest airlines at a given airport (say, United and Northwest) would form a private company that did all the security screening. Other airlines would have to pay that company for the service. There were dozens of these partnerships, being run by whoever was the biggest players at any given airport. I'm not sure when this system came about, whether it was in the 80s with airline deregulation or later.
I agree that the government will give us gestapo in the name of protecting our freedom (it's already happening, esp. for all the Iraqis who's new freedom we're protecting). But I don't think the airlines ever envisioned an attack like 9/11 coming. The government knew but couldn't get their ducks in a row, and didn't mention it to anybody.
No, the airport screening was federally mandated, based on federal requirements, and essentially federally run. They were private companies, but they were NOT under the control of the airlines. The airlines were forced to pay for it, yes, but they were not setting the standards.
The only difference between the airline security now and pre-9/11 is that before 9/11 the government was prevented from doing it by the constitution. After 9/11, nobody cares about the constitution anymore.
The structure you're talking about was there to allow technical complaince with the constitution, while at the same time flagrantly violating it.
Since the airline screening was a mandate by the FAA (itself a violation of the constitution) and the airlines were not allowed to set standards, to say the airlines are at fault for the boxcutters (Which are not weapons) getting thru on 9/11 is kinda silly.
Also, its worth noting that it was only a few months before 9/11 that the FAA finally approved a secure cockpit door. Prior to that, they were essentially banned by the FAA.
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure. Its masquarade is so effective that it has you and millions of other americans fooled into thinking its "fallible but trying to do the right thing"... when in reality, it wants to enslave you.
What do men in power want? More power. They are supposed to be restrained in our system from violating people's rights, but since the constitution failed in the civil war, they have been accruing more and more power to the federal government.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23