Slashdot Mirror
GunTV Aims To Premier 24-Hour Shopping Channel For Firearms
HughPickens.com writes: Mike McPhate reports in the NY Times that two home shopping industry veterans, Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, are set to premier GunTV, a new 24-Hour shopping channel for guns, that aims to take the QVC approach of peppy hosts pitching "a vast array of firearms," as well as related items like bullets, holsters and two-way radios. The new cable channel hopes to help satisfy Americans' insatiable appetite for firearms. The channel's forthcoming debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California but gun sales have been rising for years, with nearly 21 million background checks performed in 2014, and they appear on track to a new record this year. The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store. The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping. Buying a Glock on GunTV won't be quite be like ordering a pizza. When a firearm is purchased, a distributor will send it to a retailer near the buyer, where it has to be picked up in person and a federal background check performed. "We saw an opportunity in filling a need, not creating one," says Castle. "The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible . I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
What a ridiculous bias filled, ill-informed summary.
Every time there is a mass-shooting or similar, gun sales go up because the marketing department of the gun manufacturing lobby (NRA) goes into full swing about how the gubement is gona take yer guns. So this is perfectly timed to capitalize on the latest shooting.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Cheaper than Dirt is where most guys that really like guns go as you can get all the parts you need. Cabela's lets you fondle them and will have prices better than most gun shops. And ordering a gun online or from a shopping channel will have to be picked up with the added fees at a local gun dealer anyways so unless they are 30-50% less on everything than normal sources it will be an epic failure of a channel.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
>> debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California
The market for this channel (hunters, rural or suburban gun owners) isn't the demographic that kills for its political beliefs (Planned Parenthood), religious beliefs (San Bernardino), shoots up schools, or is involved in street gangs. Selling more guns and accessories to these folks won't increase violence one iota.
"Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, are set to premier GunTV, a new 24-Hour shopping channel for guns" " I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets." I'm pretty sure those two things are mutually exclusive. I'm not sure how them selling a metric shit ton of more guns will not put more guns on the street, unless they are being very specific. Not many people store their guns on the street, so maybe that's their angle.
This is going to go over well.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
"Guns Are for Pussies,"
Timothy Kreider, February 8, 2013
One of several reasons why the “debate” over guns, like a lot of other debates in this country, has been so intractable for so long is that neither side trusts in the other’s honesty or good faith. Each side believes its own stated arguments to be, quite simply and truthfully, their real arguments, and sees their opponents’ arguments as transparent smokescreens for their "real," more insidious agendas.
In my more charitable moods I ascribe gun owners’ passionate attachment to these weapons to fear. Their fear is grotesquely distorted--cultivated by the media and exacerbated by their own chosen propaganda--and guns are a delusional means of placating that fear, a semiautomatic security blanket. But fear is at least a motive I can empathize with. But I also suspect that some gun owners are driven by something deeper and creepier—a kind of castration anxiety or overcompensation, for which guns serve as fetish objects.
It’s clear enough to me that gun-owners’ need for their guns is just that—not a liking or a right but a need, something irrational and scary, the sort of thing that, when you try to take it away, makes them not just sorry or mad but frantic, insane, dangerous. They remind me of those types on the other end of the political spectrum for whom the legalization of hemp is the single most important issue in the United States today. It’s not that I disagree with those guys, exactly--our nation’s drug laws are ridiculous and unjust, a waste of resources and a crime against all the people in prison for a piddling offense, and by now pretty much everyone from the President of the United States on down has done bong hits, so it obviously should’ve been legalized decades ago--it’s just that I don’t think any of those perfectly valid reasons are the real reason the issue is so important to them. It’s because they’re addicts. In fact gun advocates' behavior is scarily similar to that of addicts when you try to gently divest them of their required substance: they offer up every good argument in the world why this thing is harmless, beneficial, even, it's vitally necessary, a God-given right, and it’s none of your goddamn business anyway, until finally they abandon all pretense of debate and bare their teeth and start foaming at the mouth threatening to kill someone.
It’s sort of a pro forma convention of editorials about gun control to insert a disclaimer about how you, the author, grew up in some backward gun-happy Red state and owned your first rifle when you were twelve and enjoyed many happy hours sitting in a duck blind with your grandpap. Unfortunately my parents were Mennonites and pacifists and I grew up thinking of people who owned handguns as fearful and weak, and of people who killed animals for fun as sick. To be fair, I have met some gun owners in adult life who’ve given me cause to moderate these judgments, like my friend Randy, who worked with me going door-to-door for the environment back in the day, campaigns for local Democratic candidates, and makes his own excellent barbecue sauce, and once shot a 600-pound boar, an animal so large there was literally not one room in his house big enough to contain its mounted head. Or Erik, who is cooler than me for many, many reasons, including, obviously, having the same name as the Phantom of the fucking Opera, as well as being the front man of a punk band, a Baltimore City public school teacher, and a collector of Orwell first editions, but also because he has a sleek steel G-man briefcase that turns out to contain several handguns cushioned in custom-contoured foam rubber, including a .357 Magnum, the kind Dirty Harry uses.
Erik once took me to an indoor shooting range in Baltimore, where I got to fire a rented Thompson gun (it’s Baltimore—you can do anything there). I was
Now, I could be different from most gun owners, but I don't really see the draw for something like this. As the summary notes, if a firearm were purchased like this it would have to be shipped to an FFL that the buyer could pick it up from, but most FFLs charge a fee for handling transfers like this. And for me, before I purchase a firearm I want to hold it and inspect it. Even when I have purchased firearms off the internet the actual transaction was done in person so I was able to inspect the weapon before completing the transaction. Also, in the case of (most)gun shops, you know exactly what gun you are buying because the saleman takes it off the rack or shelf and hands it to you for you to look at, then will walk it over to the register or process the transaction there. I really would not want to purchase a firearm sight unseen.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
First it became a Dice-infested shithole. Next, the partisan hacks moved in. I've been here since before it was called Slashdot. Today I deleted my account. So long, and fuck you.
You deleted the AC account?
Oh, thank you! You're my hero!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Which piece(s) information was/were incorrect?
TV shoots you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store.
Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever. I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. Do you really want to live in a world where everyone is packing at all times? I sure don't. I have no problem against people owning firearms (I have some myself) but I think everybody arming themselves out of fear is anything less than insane.
The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping.
Which is pretty much akin to Anheuser-Busch having anti-drunk driving messaging right after an ad showing how much fun you'll have with their product. More than a little hypocritical and arguably a mixed message. The NRA is nothing more than a (very effective) lobbying arm of the firearms industry. It's remarkable how many people have bought into their propaganda.
"The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible . I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
The fact that most gun owners are responsible is true but irrelevant. The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people. It just takes one unhinged person to commit a mass murder. You can do all the background checks you want but they aren't perfect and the simple fact is that would-be criminals continue to have easy access to firearms and continue to commit murders at an alarming rate. It is simply ludicrously easy for mentally ill people to get firearms and ammunition and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.
Yeah!
O'bummer's been going to take er guns for years!
You know, maybe "shooting enthusiasts" aren't as firmly grounded in reality as you keep telling yourselves.
Maybe you shouldn't be trusted with deadly weapons.
Ah, to live in a rational world...
Get off my lawn you hippie!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Have we really failed to progress so much that TV Shopping is still a viable thing? No browseability, no price comparisons, not enough resolution for detailed tables, options lists, specs, etc? Are there people just sitting on their couches, credit card in hand, waiting for some guy on the TV to wave a gun and tell them what number to call to Order Now, Supplies are Limited!
Between Ye Olde in-person purchases, catalogs, and the internet; who is buying from what is basically a stream of infomercials? Especially modestly expensive gear like guns; surely you do a little looking around, rather than just impulse-buying whatever happens to be in front of you?
What a lot of techies who are largely city folk don't realize is that there is a huge market for this in the rest of the country. The NRA is in a full-on marketing push scaring people into buying guns because they're worried about gun control even being talked about. I think something like a gun shopping channel might push some people who are on the fence into buying weapons "for protection" -- mild-mannered exurban moms or dads might be persuaded by a "think of your children" sales pitch, especially if you didn't actually have to go to a gun store.
I'm a realist when it comes to gun control. I dislike guns and would never own one, but I also realize that once something is written in the Constitution, no matter how it's interpreted, it will never get removed. The NRA is a huge pro-gun lobby, and most gun owners are quite anti-government, so I think any attempt to roll this back would end up causing a civil war. I think the pro-gun crowd would be saying "guns don't kill people, people do" even if we had 5 or 10 workplace shootings a day. Do I like it? No, but changing it would be too much effort against a powerful adversary.
If this shows up on my cable box, it'll be the first channel I ever bothered to block (aka Parental or whatever). First, tho' I'll call Xfrackity and threaten to terminate all services if they don't kill the channel entirely.
Won't help, but it'll make me feel better.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Although few would accuse Slashdot of anything even remotely resembling "good journalism", blatantly editorializing right in the FP comes off as just a smidge gauche.
The factual correctness of the writeup has no connection with its blatantly biased tone.
Still has to go through federal background checks. If those are effectively performed, we wont have more guns in criminal hands anyway.
I can see how bullets are gun-related. Same with holsters and other accessories. But why two-way radios?
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
I don't care who said it. That quote is demonstrably false and the notion behind it is asinine. If you really need a gun to get people to speak "politely" to you then you are doing something REALLY wrong.
But wouldn't your policy just discourage voluntary psychiatric evaluation? A gun owner/collector might be more reluctant to seek help/advice if doing so meant legal risks.
Billy Mays here for Glock. Act now and get your Glock 19 with a FREE carrying case! But wait there's more....
Can't wait for the first accidental shooting right on the air.
It's *going* to happen. More people are accidentally wounded by their own guns than *any* other form of gun violence. It's sad to say, but the vast majority of gun owners don't know squat about how to handle a gun.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It is very well known that every mass shooting actually creates a spike in gun sales, run on the ammunition stores. My friends, yes I do have a few gun enthusiast/nutcase friends, were complaining that they could not get any ammo, especially 0.22 after Newtown.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The target demographic is not the ones shooting up inner cities. High per capita gun ownership rate where i live, but essentially zero violent crime.
What bias do you claim to see?
I suspect people with different political opinions may see a bias in the opposite direction from the one you perceive.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
(Your fucking) God fucking bless fucking America.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.
"Several million"? Did you actually read what you linked to? It directly contradicts what you are claiming. The estimates from a variety of sources vary wildly and many are no where near the millions. Furthermore the numbers were from a PHONE SURVEY which is detailed in the document. If you think that is a reliably way to estimate this problem you don't understand the problems with phone surveys. If you need to see a badly designed survey look no further. The numbers from these surveys are easily demonstrated to be nonsense. It says point blank that the estimates you indicate are clearly nonsense.
Fear doesn't respond to evidence.
Which is why we need policies that aren't based on fear. People are going to be afraid sometimes and our laws should help them engage in evidence based good practices. Sadly our leaders are too often willing to pander to fear to obtain power rather than work to eliminate the need for the fear.
The ONLY SOLUTION to the growing problem of mass killings (not a growing problem in America, but the world) is more armed civilians that are protectors, not attackers.
The attackers will always be able to get weapons. The police will ALWAYS be either few in number or not present at the time of an incident...
At this point, every citizen of every country has a moral obligation to arm themselves and carry when possible - even if in direct violation of any law or directive from the place you are visiting.
Any other response will leave more innocents dead.
Before some idiot gets the idea this response is out of fear, it is not - it is out of simple rational analysis of what can help. Just as I put on a seatbelt because of what may happen, I think it's a good idea to go armed because of what may happen. Not that it is likely, but it will help if there is a problem.
Remember that every second an attacker spends attacking you is a second they do not have to carefully aim at someone hiding on the floor or under a table, a second more time for police to reach your area in numbers enough to help.
I don't understand how so many people on a site like Slashdot are against simple common sense of arming more citizens, when they would not bat an eye when proclaiming that defense in depth was a sound strategy for computer security...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Bias has nothing to do with "factual inaccuracies".
If I don't like person A I can generate a nice long article containing every (legitimate and true) bad thing about them never listing any virtue and paint them as a bad person, when that might not be the case at all. The article wouldn't be untrue - just biased.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
How can any sensible person agree that it is prudent to deny any constitutional right based on a list that:
#1 Is not public domain.
#2 Has no real process of removal.
#3 Has no real specification for entry.
I can't believe we have a president that believes the public is so stupid as to place trust into an organization that repetitively breaks the laws it was designed to uphold.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
" I also think that guns should be limited to those who not only pass a *yearly* criminal background check but also should not be allowed for anyone who undergoes psychiatric admission to a hospital, even if it is voluntary."
Have you seen how hard it is to get an actual inpatient psychiatric admission these days? I think that's part of the problem -- people who have legitimate psychiatric problems don't get properly cared for. Usually, the severely mentally ill end up on the streets and cycle through jail. Sometimes they're stabilized, and sometimes they aren't when they come out. States decided quite some time ago that they don't want to pay for institutional care -- you have to be completely incapable of taking care of yourself or so dangerous to others that there's no other choice but to lock you up in order to get custodial treatment now. 50 or 60 years ago, that was different -- asylums had tens of thousands of people that just had to be put away because no effective treatments were available, and it was much easier to get committed even for garden-variety stuff like depression.
The problem is that mental illness goes untreated in the vast majority of cases. Some people are OK, and others lose their minds and shoot up a school. I'm not saying the asylum system was the best way to treat mental illness, but not stigmatizing it is the only way to get it treated.
CTD has done horrible price-gouging in past "black gun" and "ammo shortage" scares, so I wouldn't give them the time of day, let alone my business.
It's called "supply and demand".
When there is a sudden spike in demand, and those bidding don't want to order for later delivery, after more are made, because they are hedging the possibility that no more WILL be made, sellers would be stupid to keep the price below market-clearance and run out of stock, when they could both make more money for themselves and route the available stock to those for whom having product NOW is important enough to pay the premium.
If "Cheaper Than Dirt" tracks the market on the downslope, too, giving good service and better-than-the-competition prices (going for the fast nickels rather than the slow dimes), I have no problem whatsoever if they track it up on the occasional peak - and maybe still have some stock available when there's a crunch. The money from the perceived "gouging" can help support their low prices at other times. (Or it can support their lifestyle or other projects: It's their choice.)
If you don't like their prices today, don't buy today. If you don't like their policies, of course, you're always welcome to shop elsewhere. That's the "free" part of a free market.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Intel debuted its new Core i9 CPU today. This seems remarkably ill-timed, given recent attacks on Tokyo and LA by giant killer robots sporting intel inside stickers."
Yep, perfectly neutral tone. Just reporting the facts, ma'am!
My wife and I have a Bernie Sanders yard sign out front... and we also own guns, and we have concealed carry permits. If Fios offers the channel, we'll check it out.
Were car shows ill-timed after the car murder at SXSW?
Well, I'm spending too much time at the computer: I thought that this headline was about GnuTV. I got really excited.
And then I got really mad.
remove nospam. to email!
Admissions to ER are even filed under "other" because there aren't enough for their own category. Injury during organized shooting is rather rare. Injury on a TV show with insurance people setting the rules will be quite rare too.
I didn't say it wasn't biased, nor did I say that the bias and factual correctness are connected. wolfgang_spangler claimed the summary was ill-informed in addition to being bias-filled, and I was asking which bits of information were bad.
Shawn: "First off, we have Achmed on the line..Achmed, how's it going today and what can we do for you?"
Achmed: "Well, Shawn, I just got 20 of those lovely AR-15's in the last segment, that we're gonna modify, and well...have some 'fun' with soon. Oh, and I wanted to give a shout out to your co-host Jill that is out today sick...We Miss you Hon!!"
(Sounds of shouts....lalalalallalalala...*boom*...).
Achmed: "Oops, sorry Shawn, we have a few federal friends at the door and I have to go for now...but really loved the AR's and I will come back later for that handsome carry case and bandolier"....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Exactly. Not to mention racist - they merely don't like those guns because they are black.
Think carefully about what you're suggesting. You want to discourage people who would voluntarily seek out inpatient mental health treatment? You want service providers to be required to submit a patient's personal information to the federal government so that they become a "prohibited person"?
Very few mentally ill people are actually violent. Those who might be inclined toward violence, such as the sociopaths and schizophrenics, will almost never seek out treatment voluntarily. Fear of being put on a list would result in many non-violent people with real mental health problems unwilling to get the treatment they need. That would have major negative implications for the quality of life of these people and their families.
Terrible idea.
Really? Are bombs and WMDs in the Bill of Rights? Didn't think so...
If you are arrested and convicted of a crime that means you can no longer own guns (a felony, a domestic violence incident, some others) you won't have them anymore. If you are convicted of a crime and hold a concealed carry license it will be revoked and your firearms confiscated. A *yearly* background check is unnecessary. Though I suppose everyone who owns a gun could promise to buy a new one yearly, thus having such a check.
While a criminal background check may prevent and remove some firearms, it won't stop things like San Bernardino. In order to stop that latest shooting, we'd need a Minority Report-style pre-crime analysis of people, which not only isn't technically possible, it's unconstitutional.
Back to your original point: California already has a system that automatically flags gun owners who commit prohibiting crimes and disarms them, the California DoJ Armed and Prohibited Persons System, aka APPS. They go after 5150s as well. However, they often overstep their bounds disarming spouses as well, until lawyers reign them back in (the firearms just need to be secured from the Prohibited Person, which can mean they just don't know the combo to the safe).
Additionally, CCW holders in California are constantly being watched by their Issuing Agencies. No doubt their IA will know very soon after an arrest and revoke their permit and secure their firearms. At a minimum, California CCW holders go through a background check every 2 years during the renewal process.
I'd meant to include a link:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation-july-dec13-guns_07-23/
"Intel debuted its new Core i9 CPU today. This seems remarkably ill-timed, given recent attacks on Tokyo and LA by giant killer robots sporting intel inside stickers."
Yep, perfectly neutral tone. Just reporting the facts, ma'am!
1. This is the New York Times. However biased the summary may be, it's not as biased as... the New York Times. Most papers have a political slant of one kind or another. The Times is... extreme... in this regard. A lot of bias, a lot of clickbait. I assume it got desperate to buoy sagging circulation numbers and chose to gave up some principles.
2. The analogy you make about them does not show bias. A gun is designed to kill. An Intel processor is a general-purpose tool. It's like the difference between selling pressure cookers and selling grenades.
I want to know if all the bad apostrophes in the summary were applied with a belt-fed apostrophe gun. Putting that many in by hand would have taken ages.
No sig today...
Really? Are bombs and WMDs in the Bill of Rights? Didn't think so...
Neither are guns.
Maybe you meant the Constitution?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
A TV channel for selling guns? What a ridiculous idea. Who the hell watches TV any more????
Well, maybe it's not so stupid: conservatives do tend to be rather backwards in a lot of ways.
Uh, the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constituttion. That is where guns (well, 'arms') are mentioned.
Utter nonsense. Do you propose all the "good guys" wear some sort of jacket that shows they're one of the good guns? When everybody shoots each other because they all appear to be the active shooter, that's a hellscape I have no interest in being anywhere near.
Here's the solution: you can own any gun that existed when the 2nd amendment was written.
Every time there is a shooting we get the same response. The news media reports it, endlessly, for days and days. While appearing to be objective they are actually promoting the liberal gun control agenda. All the while, inciting fear among the unwashed masses.
Exactly. And, the next pathetic little sociopathic malcontent in the shallow end of the gene pool realizes "Doh... I can get all my grievances against [list of things they don't like] aired -- On NATIONAL NEWS!!! Endlessly! By going on a shooting spree! Everyone in the WHOLE WORLD will know how horribly put upon I have been!"
If the people who instantly jump up demanding gun bans really wanted to break this chain of violence, the way to do it would be to quit giving the people who do this everything they want -- extravagant publicity. Enforce a blackout on the incidents. Make it a high-grade 20-to-life felony to publicize them. Make Examples, news anchors and newspaper editors doing hard time for refusing to obey the law.
What's that? Constitution? But they've already established that they consider the Constitution meaningless compared to "doing something" to "feel safe."
Note the title of this posting before flying too far off the handle. More seriously... Demonstrate, specifically, how the proposed law would have stopped this specific attack. Otherwise, I'm not listening.
Let's see what's on /. today...
/. the editors who post bullshit clickbait or the users that give them every incentive to do so?
NetHack 3.6.0 Released After a 12-Year Wait -- 20 replies
Mozilla Launches Focus By Firefox, a Content Blocker For iOS 9 -- 11 replies
Twitter Testing Non-Chronological Timelines -- 55 replies
GunTV Aims To Premier 24-Hour Shopping Channel For Firearms -- 286 replies
First Ever EU Rules On Cybersecurity -- 18 replies
In Kazakhstan, the Internet Backdoors You -- 69 replies
Radeon Graphics Cards To Support HDR Displays and FreeSync Over HDMI In 2016 -- 28 replies
Who's killing
Are you really so stupid? If someone starts killing innocent people it's pretty easy to figure out who is who, no special jacket required.
The really amusing thing is that now in a number of cases, in fact the bad guys ARE putting on a special jacket showing who they are - tactical combat vest with bulletproof vest under... so in a way you were accidentally making a good point, just not in the way that you thought.
If you have no interest in being in this "hellscape" move somewhere where you will be slaughtered indiscriminately if that makes you feel safer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why are we bowing down to illegal laws?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
It's not a "right of citizenship": it's a right that the government cannot remove.
That means non-citizens on US soil (or, anywhere) are protected from the actions of the US government (or should be).
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
A police chief (IIRC) in New York recently said "please carry, help us stop these mass murders". So I think your idea is catching on...
"An armed society is a polite society." - Robert Heinlein
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
If you choose to use statistics to remove rights, you'll eventually remove all the rights.
I'd agree with you, ONLY IF the gun-grabbing politicians give up their security teams with guns. (Why are you supporting them, anyway? Haven't you heard of Mao?)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
. Then Obama steps up and essentially blames the American people for these Islamic nut jobs that are running around killing people.
And of course, the racist gun nuts (such as yourself) never mention all of the good ol' white Christians killing people.
Lots of red herrings and unfounded, unintelligible anti-social gibberish. Get some help.
I don't respond to AC's.
I guess the previous poster though that the 2nd amendment only concerns 1 shot black powder muzzle-loader.
I hear that multiple-shootings (and other acts of terror, insanity, or political action by violent means) in the US have also declined substantially. (Don't have a footnote handy or I wouldn't have hedged the statement, but it squares with my personal experience.)
How many multiple-shootings did you experience in past years, and how many this year?
You want a personal anaecdote? OK:
The building where I worked (at a research institution the lefties thought was responsible for a lot of Vietnam era military technology, including remote sensing equipment used in the detection and assassination of Che Guevara) was bombed in 1968 (one of a series of bombings in the town at the time). The bomb was placed in the doorway I customarily entered through, and went off at about the time I would normally have been entering. Fortunately, I was down (very!) sick that day. Given the bus schedules and the timing of the explosion, if the bomber also used the bus I probably would have been getting off as he got on.
The bomber has never been formally identified, apprehended, and prosecuted - though a particular figure in The Weathermen (NOT Bill Ayres) was believed to be responsible.
I haven't had any bombings, politically inspired or otherwise, happen near me this year. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ah, indeed it is. Thanks for the clarification.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Threatening the president isn't mentioned in the first amendment but that is still illegal despite our "freedom of speech" so get over it, shit head.
This TV Station goes right along with Thomas Jefferson's comments!
Democrats should be all on board with what he believed. They are after all the "Party of Jefferson".
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
- Thomas Jefferson (1764), quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment."
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"
- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"[E]very able-bodied freeman, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, is enrolled in the militia... The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Quivery IX
Oh don't forget George Washington stood for a 2nd Amendment too.....
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American peopleâ(TM)s liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all thatâ(TM)s good."
- George Washington, First President of the United States
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all thatâ(TM)s good."
- George Washington
And James Madison and John Adams....
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed an
The Truth is a Virus!!!
This TV Station goes right along with Thomas Jefferson's comments!
Democrats should be all on board with what he believed. They are after all the "Party of Jefferson".
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
- Thomas Jefferson (1764), quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment."
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"
- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"[E]very able-bodied freeman, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, is enrolled in the militia... The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Quivery IX
Oh don't forget George Washington stood for a 2nd Amendment too.....
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American peopleâ(TM)s liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all thatâ(TM)s good."
- George Washington, First President of the United States
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all thatâ(TM)s good."
- George Washington
And James Madison and John Adams....
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, dire
Sounds like a pretty good setup, and no hunter I know is going to sit in front of the tube to find a weapon. Jesus. There's a dozen other things my 'Il lady's got on a list the length of your arm. You think I'm going to wait around until that AR comes around again? Shit. Order the parts. Build it. Done.
I'm kind of working on something like that but it's not coming along as rapidly as I'd like. My goal is to write down the really bad things I've ever done on one side of a piece of paper. On the other side is what I've learned from each of those things and how they've changed my outlook in life and my political views. Then, if there's room, a bit about how I'd vote and why I'd listen to the constituents instead of just voting however I felt. I might need a third sheet of paper and I'm not sure what to do with the back of that paper.
Why? Err... In 2016 I will be, it's a near certainty now, running for office. Chances are very good that you can't vote for me but I still am (hopefully) not using this as a speech medium to encourage folks to vote my way. Hell, I kind of hope they *don't* read this sort of stuff but I'm okay with my posts being opened up to scrutiny. Taken out of context, they'll be horrible. Oh well... Fortunately, it's a pretty rural and very relaxed area. I know scads of people and they'll probably chuckle. I don't really want the job but the current person is not doing a very good job and I've been asked to run by a number of folks which is how I got started on this path.
Frankly, I've far more interesting things to do with my time and this is why I have to be home in the spring and going to actually have to wake up at regular hours.
At any rate, you're spot on about people being able to write things with biases and be completely factual. You can factually state that I've done drugs, I've used drugs via IV, I've done loads illegal drugs, I've operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and that I'm generally an asshole. Oh, and I swear sometimes. I've also had sex outside of wedlock and am not a Christian. You could even say that I have drugs in my system right this very minute. All of which would be perfectly honest.
Which is why I've concluded that if I just tell them all the bad things that I've done so far then the press won't have a whole lot to dig up about me and surprise the voters with. Honesty has its benefits, hopefully (sort of). See, I'm not actually sure I want to win. I really do not want the job but I'll do it to the best of my ability should I be elected. I really do have far more interesting things to occupy my life - even posting to Slashdot is fun for me.
At any rate, negate bias with full disclosure perhaps?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I own, what some might call, an obscene number of firearms. As in, I have multiple safes full of 'em - like a couple of walls in a room dedicated to them and that room also has its own special steel door with a frame embedded into the concrete kind of room. In fact, I've posted at least one or two pics online. I mean, seriously, I love my firearms. I have bulk-ordered crates of ammunition.
I say that to say this... I read the summary and, while I commented on bias up-thread, I really don't see much bias in this at all. It's all pretty topical and gives some interesting things to discuss. It doesn't even seem particularly slanted against firearms. It seems reasonably fair and balanced. It doesn't portray this as a negative but does imply that it may be received negatively by some but that's a certainty in this environment.
I dunno... If you look in the closet for monsters and see nothing but darkness, that doesn't mean there are monsters in there that you can't see.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
"Intel debuted its new giant robot shopping channel today. This seems remarkably ill-timed, given recent attacks on Tokyo and LA by giant killer robots sporting Intel Inside stickers."
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
At this point, every citizen of every country has a moral obligation to arm themselves and carry when possible
Even babies? Who protects the babies? What about the disabled or mentally unstable? How about old people? Does your theory allow for armed escorts for all of those incapable of arming themselves?
Of course we know that universal arming doesn't work (see a battelfield for examples), but we do know that disarming does have positive results. Less guns means less gun violence.
I don't understand how so many people on a site like Slashdot are against simple common sense of arming more citizens, when they would not bat an eye when proclaiming that defense in depth was a sound strategy for computer security...
If your endpoint protection was more likely to hose your system and those of your family than protect it, then most people wouldn't use it. Same concept.
Correct me if I'm wrong but once they are in private hands what is stopping them being sold on the private market? Do they have to go via a broker who checks the background of the new owner?
As far as I know there are little controls there. How does this differ from a gun sold at a normal gun shop though? Once it is sold it enters private hands. My comment was addressing guns sold via TV vs those sold by a gun shop and I'm not seeing how this changes the initial sale process as far as background checks anyway.
People are more polite in line at the grocery store than, on the internet.
No they are not. They might appear to be more polite but I assure you that it is a facade. They are still thinking the same things and their rudeness might be more nuanced but they are the same rude assholes they are online.
You can punch someone in the grocery store, or haunt them well into the parking lot, maybe even on the ride home.
And go to jail for assault and battery or stalking or harrassment. At no point however was a firearm involved or necessary.
Yes, we're doing it really wrong, but that doesn't entirely void the logic.
Yes it does, at least with regard to everyone carrying a firearm. There is precisely zero requirement for people to carry firearms to ensure a polite society and there is plenty of evidence that wide availability of them results in a more violent society. There are plenty of examples of countries around the world with FAR more restrictive rules of firearms AND far lower rates of violent crime than the US. This isn't a coincidence. Politeness has nothing to do with everyone carrying firearms.
I can see it now. He gets elected by a landslide and the political wonks take notice. New strategy: "out-dirt" your competition.
"Oh, so he ran a prostitution ring? That's nothing - I'm a professional hit-man!"
Gives new meaning to the term "race to the bottom."
Are you really so stupid?
You really should be asking yourself that question. When bullets are flying from multiple people with guns you are NOT going to know the good guys from the bad guys. Only in your testosterone-fueled wet dreams does it go down the way you imagine.
If something seems remarkably ill-timed, what's biased about pointing this out?
It's not challenging the website, the service it offers, the needs it claims to meet, the prices it charges, the quality of the guns on offer. It's highlighting that this seems an awkward time to be advertising a shiny new gun store, given recent media stories relating to gun use.
You're far too fucking sensitive. Or stupid. Or both. Lets hope you're not a gun owner too.
Countries that regulate firearms strictly and prevent people from carrying without darn good reason have less gun murder and less mass shootings.
Not to mention, there's some idiot gun-owners out there. I've met some. I wouldn't want them at the scene of a mass shooting. If you just issue guns to people, or require them to get them, you're going to be giving deadly weapons to a lot of people who won't learn anything about gun safety or when and when not to use them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Probably not at all. I was working on the assumption that it might increase the total number of guns sold. In which case, if x% of legal guns sold ends up on the black market, then this will lead to more guns in the black market. That said that is a total assumption and it may just be that gunTV cannibalises other sources it will have no impact.
This is not about guns, but about dangerous levels of control.
To quote an old saying:
"Government is like a fire in your fireplace. It can make you very warm and comfortable, but if you let it get out of control it can destroy everything you value."
The new gun channel sounds interesting, though... 8-)
I'm kind of hoping there's a limit. The things I'm guilty of are things that are fairly common among the people who'd be electing me. However, yes, I could actually envision a situation were people competed to be the worst. In my case, I figured being open and honest was the best solution. It also helps to prevent surprises. I don't really have any great big skeletons in my closet because the closet door has been opened.
Some time back, probably 2008 or 2009, I was "doxxed." Someone posted my tax information online. It was pretty invasive feeling and I got some hate mail and things like that. I even got some snail mail. Most of that came from people who were pissed that I wasn't donating to their favorite cause or things like that. I donate a fair amount of money, the taxes show this, and I don't support groups like PETA or Greenpeace. I actually got hate mail for not doing so.
I'm sure the information is cached somewhere. I didn't over-react. I was already in the process of moving to a new location. I changed my phone numbers and my credit was already locked down. I know technology enough to know that I can't stop it and the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. It seemed really invasive even though tax information is public information.
I'm still unsure of how they compiled the information to get it but it was accurate and they did, at least, share it in unedited form so it was accurate. Yes, yes I donated a bunch of money and used it to reduce my tax burden. No, I did not support everyone's cause but spent it on causes that I approve of. I still do.
At any rate, the two may seem unrelated but it made me realize that, yeah, you can't please everyone and some folks just want to be pissed off. If I just tell you the reasons to be pissed off then it's easier than dealing with you saying that you not only are pissed off but that I was hiding that. It's not like they were going to like me no matter what I did and, in this case, they weren't going to vote for me.
Which, to make a short story long, is how I ended up deciding to go about creating this document for the purposes of informing people that I'll be on the ballot. I didn't, and still don't, have political aspirations but I've been asked to run by enough people and have decided that such is my duty. If they feel that I'm the right person for the job then I'll accept that position and do it to the best of my ability. If not then, well, I really have more interesting things to do with my time even if it means that I'm just sitting here and typing out long-winded replies on Slashdot.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Excellent debating skills in display there.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater will also result in legal consequences. Both these amendments don't say "talk and shoot however you want without consequence."
Owning a weapon isn't threatening anyone. Thus, your comparison of the first and second amendments is a faulty one. I make no claims about what type of matter makes up the space above your neck though.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.