Slashdot Mirror
NRA Complaint Takes Down 38,000 Websites (vice.com)
Sarah Jeong, reporting for Motherboard:38,000 websites hosted by the automated publishing service Surge went down today, after the National Rifle Association sent a legal notice over a parody website created by the Yes Men. A few days ago, the Yes Men released the parody video, "Share the Safety" -- announcing a supposed NRA program to deliver firearms into the hands of those too impoverished to afford guns. The opening frame of the video says "Paid for in part by the National Rifle Association of America with additional support from Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation." "Systemic poverty and dumb laws keep the urban poor unable to acquire life-saving firearms," says the video, which is available on YouTube. "That's why we at the NRA are teaming up with Smith & Wesson to share the safety.â The YouTube description includes a link to the "official" website, ShareTheSafety.org.
Where do I sign up?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Dunno. The way the summary is written, it sounds a lot like impersonation.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Whoever killed 38,000 websites to get rid of the one the DMCA targeted is an idiot.
I am all for parody, but isn't claiming to be supported by the organization you are parodying a bit much?
By blatantly stating that the NRA is sponsoring it and supports it, is not fine
There are rules. They exist for a reason.
Try doing a parody site on abortion and state plainly that the Democratic National Committee is paying for it and that Planned Parenthood is also sponsoring it.
I expect you will see the same thing.
But I don't expect that you will understand because you don't like the NRA
"Automated publishing" sounds a whole lot like spam to me. Disgusting.
Not a parody as I understand it, doesn't matter where you stand on gun rights this is a new low, I bet I can guess the party of who came up with this and I am just plain fed up with their mantra imposing their will onto others.
Aside from any hate for the NRA, I see no issue with this. Some people pulled a stunt giving off the false impression that they represented the NRA and Smith & Wesson.* The NRA requested a takedown, Surge complied with the takedown but screwed the pooch and brought down 38,000 sites instead of just the target.
The wording of the the article implies the NRA should be held responsible. It is the fault of Surge.
*Yeah I know it was supposed to be a "parody", but watch the video on YouTube. They never mention that they are not affiliated with the NRA or S&W. In fact, the little disclaimer on the bottom at the end of the video even makes the claim that they do represent the NRA.
Perhaps the authors over-did it intentionally to trigger the Streisand Effect.
Table-ized A.I.
Satire is protected Fair Use. If there's no chance for a reasonable and prudent person to actually believe it's NRA produced propaganda, they're golden.
PARODY videos are protected by current copyright laws. I am not sure how they won this case, other than by legal bullying and intimidation. The NRA has need pockets, filled with gold, from the morons of the heartland.
Watch the video. The disclaimers at the bottom expressly state that they do indeed represent the NRA, which is false. The one at the beginning even says "Paid for in part by the NRA". That is not parody.
You can find the parody video here.
The video uses the NRA logo and [what appears to be] the Smith and Wesson logo, and there's absolutely no clue that it's a parody. It seems completely legit, as if those two organizations made a serious promo video.
I'm a big fan of fair use in all it's varied forms, but I think this is a really good case of "impersonation", and is easily viewed as slanderous or libellous.
On a related note, before everyone posts the cherry-picked, not-the-whole-story statistics, does anyone have any good studies and/or statistics about gun ownership?
A good statistic would be one that relates chance of death by all causes to gun ownership, and compares to similar areas with similar social structure.
In other words, saying "owning guns increases your chance of an accidental shooting" might still be statistically good if it lowers your chance of dying from all causes (like not having money for medicine because you got robbed), or comparing America with the UK (because the UK has good health care while the US has almost none).
Anyone have any, you know, actually good statistics?
(We're the smart people in the room. People expect us to distil the good info from the bad.)
It's a simple case of trademark violation. `Yes Men' used NRA and S&W trademarks illegally and the trademark holders did what they're expected and required to do to protect their trademarks. Libtards are self inflicting the necessary cognitive dissonance to make this somehow the NRA's fault, just as they've been trained to do.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
When I saw the "Paid for in part by the NRA", I wondered if somehow NRA funds were used in the video.
With how extreme the NRA and the people involved with it are, I wonder if somebody got a grant from the NRA for the video by somebody who wasn't bright enough to recognize that it was a parody. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, positions taken by the NRA are really not out of line with the one in this video - find the right manager within the NRA, with the right line of bullshit to go with this and I'm sure this idiot would say "Fuck yeah, minorities in urban cores need to defend themselves more than anybody else in the country."
If that's the case, then I'm sure that's why the NRA jumped on this with both feet (in lead boots) and squashed it as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. The DCMA reasoning is probably to avoid the embarrassment of having to disclose that they actually paid for the video.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
As parodies go, it's pretty clever. I'm wondering if Yes Men were clever enough to intentionally cause the NRA to issue a takedown and put the video in the public spotlight. Had this been a normal, "Saturday Night Live" type of parody, it's unlikely I would have seen it or that it would make any news at all.
But here we are. I've seen the video, and the satire illustrates some potential holes in the rhetoric of the NRA and pro-gun side of that particular issue.
Golf clap.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Libtards are self inflicting
Pretty sure there were no Libertarians involved in this
I can't tell if that was an overly subtle attempt a parody, but don't confuse Liberals (a.k.a. Democrats or Libtards) with Libertarians. Completely different philosophies.
You know, I always wondered how something can be a "right" yet you have to pay a non-governmental body to exercise it. If gun ownership is indeed the absolute constitutional right that the NRA says it is, they should definitely be pushing for legislation to have every American issued a firearm.
Maybe libel or slander. If it is too authentic looking, the production could be viewed as intentionally trying to harm a brand.
l am not sure if it would be considered libel or slander. Videos are usually have "spoken" words but a video maybe considered as sort of a "written" record by the law.
The reality behind this socialist produced "mocumentary" tells a much different story! In Detroit the Police Chief with massive government cutbacks advised local citizens to arm themselves! http://hotair.com/archives/201... It really bothers these Yes Men that the result of citizens arming themselves has been steep declines in Detroit crime! From the article: >>Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014 than during the same period last year, 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings. Craig attributed the drop to better police work and criminals being reluctant to prey on citizens who may be carrying guns. “Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,” said Craig, who has repeatedly said he believes armed citizens deter crime. “I don’t want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed. “I can’t say what specific percentage is caused by this, but there’s no question in my mind it has had an effect,” Craig said. Compare Detroit's scenario to Chicago's: Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and the highest gun homicide rate! Murder citie's crime rates are off the charts, because citizens can't defend themselves, while the criminals have all the guns. These "Yes Men" are so far from reality, it makes their little joke video much funnier, as they have no idea what they are lampooning!
So there's the problem.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Among the other outright stupidities that humans in general, especially here in the U.S., where I was born, raised, and have spent my entire life: Thinking that putting more barriers up to discourage and outright prevent the acquisition of firearms by law-abiding citizens is going to in any way shape or form reduce the occurance of mass-shootings like we've been seeing; it won't. What it'll do is roughly equivalent to a car alarm, or a deadbolt lock on the front door of your house: It'll deter the most casual criminals, but the professionals and those truly dedicated to their course of action will find a way to get the tools they want to perform whatever mayhem they have in mind. If it's not guns, they'll obtain or make IEDs of some kind and blow people up (Boston Marathon bombers) or just get knives or even swords or other hand-to-hand weapons to attack people with, or for all we know something more exotic.
Now, to all you SJWs and hysterical types who are now so triggered that you need to go take a Xanax so you can be calm enough to write your insults and death-threats against me: Don't even bother. I don't give a fuck what you think, because I think you and your gun-control rhetoric are utterly and completely wrong, and a snowball's chance in hell is still greater than you've got to try to even begin to change my mind. Oh, and by the way: I don't even own a single gun myself; but I support the Constitutional right every U.S. citizen has with regard to firearms, and if you don't then I think you're a bad citizen and should consider renouncing your citizenship and finding somewhere else to live.
Oh, and also: I'm not voting for either Trump or Clinton, because I don't trust either one of them or think either one of them is in any way shape or form suited to being POTUS, so don't bother hanging that 'Republican' bullshit on me, either; save your bandwidth for someone who gives a fuck what you think.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Now, people are starting to question the position of the NRA that *anybody* regardless of who they are should be able to procure guns
Not their actual position, although waving blanket, false statements like that around is what passes for political discourse these days. Actual fact: the current background check system was actually strongly supported by the gun lobby: people who are convicted felons or legally declared mentally incompetent don't have second amendment rights. Or many other constitutional rights, say for example, voting. The current argument (causing the House to behave like the dysfunctional third world legislative clique it apparently actually is) is over the "sounds good!" legislation of "people on the terror watch list shouldn't be allowed to buy firearms". Hmm. So, a law in which denies something listed on the bill of rights to people on a secret government list, who can get on that list simply by someone voicing suspicion, with no procedure for getting off the list (or even knowing if/why they're on it)? Pick anything else that's a legal right (voting? free speech? Self-incrimination? Illegal search and seizure?) and swap that in for "gun ownership" in this scenario and watch everyone across the political spectrum freak out. We tried something like this in the 50's with McCarthy when the enemies were Commies instead of Radicals, and are universally ashamed of that fact in hindsight. Of course the NRA should be objecting to this. I'm shocked that the ACLU, for example, isn't too.
To be clear, the NRA didn't take down 38,000 websites. Incompetent hosting company took down 38,000 websites.
But like good liberals, you blame something else, instead of the actual culprit.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You have a very poor understanding of what a "right" is.
Government is (or should be) prohibited from unreasonably restricting rights, but it has no obligation to fund our exercise of them.
Are you also given a government issued a printing press? Beer? Your chosen 'holy book'?
You're confused about what 'rights' are. Likely because of all the non-rights that get thrown around as rights these days.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Of course they can, with a pointed stick if that's all they can afford.
We don't issue them printing presses either.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You know, I always wondered how something can be a "right" yet you have to pay a non-governmental body to exercise it. If gun ownership is indeed the absolute constitutional right that the NRA says it is, they should definitely be pushing for legislation to have every American issued a firearm.
You don't have to pay a third party anything. It is perfectly legal for you to manufacture a firearm yourself. In fact there are plenty of kits out there allowing you to do just that, everything from muzzle loading black powder rifles where you have to finish the wood and assemble the parts to AR-15 receiver blanks that you have to mill down yourself. If you want you can even make the firearm from scratch if you have access to the machinery and raw goods (or a mill, shovel, and barrel blank if you want to make an AK-47). What you are saying is like saying freedom of the press isn't a right because you have to purchase a printing press from a manufacturer. Does the government need to issue everyone a printing press as well then?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I agree with the other posters that these videos are likely to cause confusion to the average viewer, and are probably in violation of trademark law. That said, the way to handle that is in the courts.
DCMA takedown requests only apply to copyright infringement, not trademark law. It is a violation of the law to use the DCMA this way, both according to the USPTOs guidelines(See B.4), and existing case law.
From the article, it is unknown whether their lawyers sent a DCMA request or a some other sort of cease and desist letter. But either way, Digitalocean had no legal obligation to take down the content, or any legal liability if they didn't take it down. The fact that they shutdown an entire service over a toothless complaint about one page on that service is unacceptable, and people should seriously reconsider doing business with them in the future.
Then use the proper name instead of ambiguous insults?
Yeah, after all, the NRA and Ronald Reagan were all for the Black Panthers carrying around [scary-looking-guns] to defend their neighborhoods. /s
"Defending their neighborhoods"?
You mean from those dangerous "cracker babies"?
https://youtu.be/2Y3Cd9gnvlw
https://youtu.be/-S2MIqgI-ic
So much hate.
So much cognitive dissonance on the Left.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
They really should lay off considering how unintentionally funny this "parody" is.
This issue is more about poverty and crime than it is about a particular scary bit of technology. They have accidentally stumbled closer to the truth of the matter here than they usually ever manage.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The article seems to be claiming that Youtube cares about Fair Use and false content claims like this one.
Unless you are from a big media company, then its rubber stamp ban anything you like.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Hey, just let food stamp EBT cards be used for arms and ammo purchases and not just soda and frozen pizza and we are golden eh? While we are at it, might as well let them buy beer, wine and candy...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
Again, as ArylAkamov mentions, this was a CDC study.
The Obama Admin disappeared it for all practical purposes. It wasn't on any morning news shows, the View, any of the late night Snark shows, none of the Sunday Morning shows, nothing.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Exactly right! You have a right to abortion, but that doesn't mean the government will pay for it!
oh, wait...
People believe stuff in the tabloid is true. So yes, simply stating "paid for by the NRA" well it stopped being satire at that point. It's takes someone of intellect to realize that something like this is satire. The sad part is that intelligent people make up less than 50% of the population, probably less than 30% of the population. As you can see in Britain, the problem with a lack of intelligence is a global pandemic and not something restricted to the bible belt in America.
There was nothing ambiguous about it. Liberal retards. Libtards. It's your comprehensive abilities that are in question here.
I can walk out into the street, stand on a corner and speak to my heart's content. You don't need a printing press to exercise your right to speech.
It is distinguishable from the NRA, because the NRA promotes safety first. This video does not promote safe firearms ownership.
The actual purpose of the NRA is teaching the citizens of the country how to safetly own and operate firearms in the ultimate defense of the country in direct support of the Constitution and the documented intent of the Constitutions authors. The political side of the NRA stems from this charter to support the Constitution, which is currently under attack by domestic enemies. The intent of the founding signatories of the Constitution is well documented in their own written word in parallel documents. These documents are not part of the Constitution to avoid overly complicating what should be a simple document. The NRA asserts these position papers as evidence that their mission is in support of the Constitutions intent.
The attack comes from power brokers that would undermine the strength of the People to hold their government accountable. One need not look hard through modern discourse to see evidence of our government working counter to this accountability (domestic spying, lack of prosecution for unexcusable officer shootings, Clinton's email-gate (she's in office, Trump isn't yet), etc).
The NRA isn't an enemy of the People, but it stands opposed to those who would see the People disarmed and made subservient to our government. History says opposition to being made a subject of any government in the long term is a good thing.
Please wake up and see the long term play here. Honestly, a few crimes and accidents are worth it to avoid the entire USA becoming slaves. The Negro's didn't like slavery, and it took a very bloody armed protest to break that system (Civil War). Why not learn from that unfortunate time in our history where the weak were exploited by the rich and powerful under the color of law (enforced by our government) for their own comfort?
So, it's a right that can be exercised for free.. after you buy a series of machine tools, become a skilled gunsmith, build a lab to make some guncotton for the shells.. you're not exactly disproving my point there.
So, lemme get this straight.... If "Saturday Night Live" created the exact same video and broadcast it, we'd all laugh, and then go back to ignoring it.
But if some clowns post this video to the internet, it's a takedown via the DMCA -- and 38,000 sites also suffer due to someone's fat finger mistake.
So once again, citizens have no rights, but corporations do. Meanwhile, the GUN NUTS are screaming about their second amendment rights, but guess what, that's apparently the ONLY right you have, because that was the only one you cared about.
The politicians and corporations have you so FOCUSED on your gun rights, they have secretly deprived you of all other rights, and guess what? YOU FELL FOR IT.
I hope you've got your gun, because you're going to need it real soon.... This country has been usurped by the wealthy and greedy and your gun, which was supposed to protect you from tyrants, well, that pop gun won't do squat against drones and tanks and RPGs. Good luck with that.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You also don't need a holy book to pray, and fermentation happens quite naturally.
The closest analogy would be voting, and the government pays for that, establishes standards for the equipment and organizes volunteers to run the service. So.. why does Smith & Wesson get to hold my right to bare arms hostage to their profit margin again?
The government also has a role in ensuring everyone has a free and unrestricted ability to exercise those rights. Such as how they organize and control voting rather than letting corporations restrict voting to whomever has the best credit rating (and wouldn't certain conservatives love that).
The government also forces cable companies to provide public access channels free to the community.
So.. why can't the government force gun makers to provide a free "Liberty" gun to any citizen who wants one?
So....the government has to provide everyone with a house so you can exercise your 3rd Amendment rights? Your point is still ridiculous and irrelevant.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Is the Chicago Federal DA even bothering to prosecute what would likely be many, many Federal firearms violations (felon with a gun, etc)?
Or is the Obama-Emmanuel-DOJ nexus so strong that they're not bothering with Federal firearms prosecutions because it would look bad for a hard-Democratic city that was the home of the first Black President to have a high rate of prosecution of Black felons? It disrupts the narrative.
Poe's Law states,
The fact that this video is indistinguishable from a sincere expression of the NRA says more about the NRA than it does about the Yes Men.
The fact that you believe that about the NRA say more about you than the NRA.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You have a weird notion of reading comprehension. Or you're just dumb. The 3rd Amendment says the government can't quarter soldiers in your house without the owners permission. It makes no mention of any right to home ownership.
However, the government does have a number of laws ensuring equal access to housing, and provides funds to those who can't afford shelter on their own.. so you're still not disproving my argument.
What non-right gets thrown around as a right? I mean you sound like you think that the Bill of Rights is a list of ALL our rights, even though it specifically says otherwise.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
The ACLU is against using the watch lists for background checks. See https://www.aclu.org/blog/wash... for example.
Finding God in a Dog
So make your own gun. Nothing is stopping you.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
So do you also agree with the Founders that standing armies are inherent threats to liberty? How are you on the Swiss military/militia? How would you feel about disbanding the Army and Navy?
The second Amendment was intended to protect the ability of the People to defend their nation. It can certainly be argued that it also includes a guarantee of personal safety, but if you're going to argue Constitutional integrity, then you should be prepared to reconcile the vast difference between our current society and that document intended. Personally, I see a trained, professional cadre of soldiers as being an absolute necessity, and consequently would look favorably on either some variant of the Swiss system, or a far greater restriction on gun ownership. Either way, I'm fine with taking an empirical approach to the situation, and since this seems to be a national issue the CDC seems well situated to conduct such studies. If you would like to take issue with empirical findings, do your own study. If your position is that this is a moral or rational issue not subject to empirical findings, then again, you are forced to reconcile past intentions with present conditions.
This isn't a huge issue with me. I'm from Alaska and know my way around a hunting rifle, and don't see any reason for those to be particularly restricted. While the military has at times been employed against the People, generally it hasn't been the huge issue that our Founders thought, at least in terms of domestic freedom, and most of the incidents of military violence against citizens have involved the National Guard, which at least approximates a militia. With the current conflict of personal safety versus national safety versus the strict adherence to the Constitution and the Founder's intentions, I think the most likely scenario is that the Constitutional right to bear arms will be further eroded and restricted, or preferably but less likely it will be amended to make explicit that we have turned aside from the path of the citizen soldier.
We as a nation need to have a talk about these issues. We have a lot of dead citizens, a huge standing army, and we are not being true to our founding principles in any sense. Something needs to give. Taking the empirical approach may in fact not be the correct path to a solution, but we do have a problem and we do need to solve it somehow.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You mean the NRA didn't jump all over the media after Sandy Hook? After Columbine? After every major shooting incident you will see the NRA having major press conferences. So who again is using the tragedy for their political gain?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
You have a weird notion of reading comprehension. Or you're just dumb. The 3rd Amendment says the government can't quarter soldiers in your house without the owners permission. It makes no mention of any right to home ownership.
And the Second makes no mention of the SOURCE of your firearms that you might bear, only that you are allowed to have them. Since your argument is that you have to pay a 3rd party to exercise your right to bear arms and that the government should provide the gun for you, the logical extension would be that the government has to provide you with housing so that you can exercise your right to refuse the quartering of troops in that housing. Since, you know, in most cases you have to pay a third party to purchase that housing just as you have to pay a third party to purchase your firearm. If you refuse to pay a third party you can always build your own house just as you can build your own firearm, although owning a firearm without ammunition is nothing more than a very fancy and complicated club, so unless you can make your own black powder and mold your own bullets you are still beholden on a third party for ammunition. Unless your next ridiculous argument is that the government should also issue ammunition rations (I can also make a leap just as absurd as the one you are making and say that by virtue of the 2nd Amendment the government can make the ownership of firearms legal but can make the sale or possession of ammunition illegal, as the 2nd Amendment only explicitly mentions the ownership of arms, not munitions).
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Yes it is a joke but the fact that it looks authentic to the point it can confuse the typical person is the reason the NRA is threatening legal action. Furthermore what this site is suggesting is likely outright illegal under the Brady Act; as a straw purchase, which the NRA, whether you like them or not, would obviously never advocate.
Holy shit, the video doesn't just claim to be supported by the organization; it contains zero hint that it's a parody, at all. It looks very authentic...
When you can't tell the difference between parody and reality, you have to ask yourself if maybe reality have gotten too crazy...
l am not sure if it would be considered libel or slander. Videos are usually have "spoken" words but a video maybe considered as sort of a "written" record by the law.
It is a published, copyrightable form, therefore it meets the definition of libel.
I wonder how loud the complaints would be were someone to produce a Hillary ad containing a Hillary impersonator who says libelous things, and then has "her" saying "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this ad" at the end.
but don't confuse Liberals (a.k.a. Democrats or Libtards) with Libertarians.
I'm glad you explained that. I was wondering what the problem with Librarians was....
Yes, because we've seen what all those responsible gun owners have done to support all of the other amendments of the constitution. We've seen recent laws piss all over the 1st, and 4th-8th amendments, yet I havn't heard of the armed insurrection that "The People" have launched "to hold the government accountable". Just a lot of frothing around any attempt to even have any kind of discussion about what can be done about the epidemic of gun violence in the US. Of course these same frothing folks are more than willing to talk about gutting other amendments because "terrorism"
So, if this video is, as you seem to indicate, easily distinguishable from a real NRA video, then their takedown notices are nothing more than bullying.
This wasn't a DMCA takedown. It was a trademark complaint. Protecting a trademark is REQUIRED by law, otherwise the trademark owner can lose it. If you don't want to be "bullied" by trademark owners, don't use their trademarks, and don't use their trademarks in a statement that the content YOU produced was paid for by them. It's pretty simple. It doesn't matter if anyone can tell that the content was not actually produced by the trademark owner.
2nd Amendment > 1st Amendment.
Duh, 2's bigger.
It's so true! I hate how Liberals are always blaming immigration and Muslims on our domestic problems. It's so obvious that Americans keep voting bad politicians in and have no sense of responsibility but somehow the Liberals keep saying it's Mexicans and that they'll build a wall. Great point!
Don't be dense. Nobody refers to libertarians as "libtards." That moniker is reserved for regressives, SJWs, Democrats, and other related vermin.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Why do you hate humanity?
Who do you think is using publicly funded infrastructure? I pay for my connection and pay my share of all the privately funded infrastructure.
Having a right is not the same as having someone pay for it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Liberals blame everything on White Heterosexual Christian Males. They are the devil! Vote Hillary 2016!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Vapid Emotionalism. Nice Job Snowflake.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It is the right to keep and bear "arms", not "firearms". "Arms" includes swords, knives, rocks, shivs, and pointy sticks. Many of these items are available for free.
In comparison, look at Austraila where they have made it illegal to carry any knife larger than a pen knife.
Trademarks are not protected from parody.
http://corporate.findlaw.com/i...
The standard is whether or not the use is "likely to cause confusion". If the use of the NRA and S&W trademarks by the Yes Men are "likely to cause confusion", then they have a bigger problem than their trademarks (see Poe's Law).
And if it's not likely to cause confusion, then they don't have a cause of action. It can't be both ways.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Here's the new text: "The obligation of citizen to bear arms shall be enforced. Every citizen shall receive a basic weapon, and allowed to upgrade at own cost. Every citizen shall be compelled to participate in mandatory weapons training for four weekends a year."
If your rhetoric is true, this should be your objective. I took the idea for that last sentence from Switzerland who, apparently, also have lots of guns, but not anywhere near as many mentally unstable citizens. Or maybe... although they do, they know they're going against a target which is very trained in the use of firearms?
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
Liberalism would collapse if they realized the most bigot'd people are Liberals. Then again... that would take intelligence.
Bigot: Hate of something different than yourself. For Reference: See Trump protesters.
Conservatives don't hate Obama because "Black" or Hillary because "Vagina". They hate them because of the shitty job they've done and the horrible direction this country is headed. It is absolutely disheartening that the first Black President is such a God Awful Turd and the first Majority Candidate Woman is THE example of Corrupt, Rich, White, Career Politician.
But ask yourself... if Conservatives are sooooooo racist... why did the 16 candidates actually come from a diverse pool of individuals while the Democrat party had Rich White people? Why, if we are so racist, was the #2 for the first few months a Black Doctor? If Trump is soooooo racist, why hasn't it been an issue for the decades he's built a global company? Why is his stance against illegal immigration racist while that same stance from Bill Clinton wasn't? Why is Trump racist when Hillary "Blacks are Super Predators" Clinton isn't?
Hypocrites. That's why.
First off pointing out that most conservatives are racist doesn't mean that there aren't democrats whom are also racist.
It HAS. You know we all know Donald Trump is a racist. This isn't NEW for him. He used to ban black applicants from his housing buildings. We've been beating this drum for decades and no one listens to people who say Trump is racist until suddenly he's a viable candidate while Sprewing literally insane things. Don't blame the messenger because you're finally ready to hear the message.
You think it's a strong stance on illegal immigration? Not maybe "Mexicans are rapists and murderers"? Oh wait.. not all mexicans ... just the ones in America. Literally saying the only good mexican is on the other side of the border. Do you have mystery footage of Clinton saying Muslims should be banned from entry?
Oh it's HUGELY racist for Clinton to say that. It's almost as if we have issues with Clinton too.. but do feel free to ignore all the articles on Superpredator (something Clinton HAS apologized for unlike Trump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronda-lee/hillarys-superpredator-comment_b_9655052.html
http://time.com/4238230/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-superpredator/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/8/1467336/-Hillary-Clinton-Gangs-of-kids-are-super-predators-with-no-conscience-no-empathy
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/racial-justice-failures-hillary-clinton-cant-ignore
Good, perhaps then farmers will pay people a living wage for the job and not be able to exploit workers due to their immigration status, and refuse to hire american citizens.
I am willing to pay more for agricultural products if it means a reduction in the use of slave labor from third world countries.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I think this is more a form of Libel than Parody. Parody is using likeness to something else but not representing it as something else. Think "Eat It" by Weird Al as opposed to "Beat It" by Michael Jackson. The likeness is there in the same music and video concept but the lyrics are different and Weird Al takes attribution for the work. This peace changes the message completely around and gives attribution to someone who is not affiliated with it. A good parody might have a similar sounding name and website. This one is using a legitimate organizations name and website to infer association. This content deserves to be taken down - especially because the creators don't take ownership of it. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they are sued for defamation and libel as well.
It is China who leads with CO2 emissions....
They might do some dumb shit sometimes, but im glad there is someone lobbying for one of MY interests for a change. None of my other hobbies have any lobbies in their favor. Im not a multinational corporation that wants to frack. Im just a simple law abiding person that likes firearms. Yet i have a powerful force in the NRA that makes sure MY interest is not infringed upon.
First, it's "bare" arms, not "bear". Second, nobody has ever protested the various knife regulations and bans that exist throughout the US. "Arms" in this case has always been interpreted as firearms.
Other than the lack of machine tools, a chemical lab, metal to fashion into a gun..
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are two different rights. (They are both among the six rights that the Federal Government is obliged to respect by the First Amendment.) "Congress shall make no law... abridging" either of them, but they are two separate rights.
My understanding from John Oliver's show is that one reason there isn't good data on gun violence is that the CDC is not allowed to fund studies pertaining to it.
There's plenty of good data and analysis on gun (and other) violence, and how private ownership of guns affects it.
But it's researched and published in the relevant field. That field is criminology, not medicine.
Some of their conclusions include: ...
- Guns are used several times (sixish last I looked) more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.
- Increasing private ownership and carrying of guns (drastically!) decreases victimization: Murders, assaults, robberies, rapes,
- Defending against an attack using a gun (per FBI stats) substantially reduces chances of injury or death of the victim, compared to completely cooperating with the attacker. Any other mode of self-defence INcreases chances of injury or death.
- Most self-defence with a gun does not even involve the gun being fired. (Being confronted with a gun usually makes the bad guy back down right away.)
- When someone is shot in the defender's belief the shoot is proper (e.g. self-defence), cops are about five and a half times more likely to be found to have shot someone they shouldn't have than armed private citizens. (Not a law-of-small-numbers thing: Civilians shoot MORE in self-defense than cops. Main factor may be that they just are more likely to know what's going on when they have to act.)
With results like this, of course, it's no wonder that you never hear a mention of the field of criminology or its work in the press. B-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
))
Sorry, not closing your parentheses is a terrible thing.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Your argument is the cousin of saying the Government has to search you on a daily basis, so you can exercise your 4th Amendment rights. It's ridiculous.
Actually, I double checked and it is indeed bear arms. So you have the right to some ursine appendages.
"Whoooosh" dude. Whooooosh...
[relax. i'm on your side...]
You don't seem to realise what back breaking work these people are doing daily during the harvest seasons for essentially slave wages.
I very much doubt you can find an American that would be willing to do that type of strenuous work even for an American "living wage."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Hang around for a minute. Someone will be along to call you a fascist for suggesting that people don't have a right to a pony (and healthcare, food, unlimited education w no consequence for previous failure, housing in the location of their choice and never, ever being offended).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Perhaps always by you. If so, you've always been wrong.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Housing is one that comes to mind, also health care. Neither are rights.
Rights are _never_ things that others have to pay for.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You can buy an electric drill for $20. That and some black pipe is all you need to make a zip gun.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"Flamebait"? I'm surprised at the number of posters that are "enthusiastic" about gun ownership rights and their responses to the various posts. Maybe somebody who considers my root post flamebait can explain why.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
For info on a stance on illegal immigration and farm workers you might want to do a search on "cesar chavez anti illegal immigration".
The competition to cheap labor is automation.
Europe has a huge lead on automated harvesting equipment because America has Mexican and Central American workers.
There is no such thing as 'slave wages', slaves don't get wages. Stop watering down words.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I know many people that have tried to get jobs working on farms, and been denied because they weren't illegal immigrants, but as others have said, automation will replace those workers anyways as it has replaced all heavy labor jobs.
Are you for paying people slave wages to pick lettuce? Personally, I am for human dignity and the laws being followed, such as immigration law, and minimum wage laws, and employment laws.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Trademarks are not protected from parody.
I didn't say they were. Don't lecture me on that topic.
The standard is whether or not the use is "likely to cause confusion".
No, the standard is if you are using someone else's trademark pretending to be them. That's what happened here.
If the use of the NRA and S&W trademarks by the Yes Men are "likely to cause confusion", then they have a bigger problem than their trademarks (see Poe's Law).
When the "parody" starts out by claiming that the NRA and S&W paid for the content, then there is a good likelyhood for confusion no matter who produces the material. Poe's statement -- not a law -- notwithstanding.
Listen, you can hate on the NRA all you want, but they aren't the guilty party here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A program that gives guns to people who need to defend themselves but can't afford to buy them is not "parody": this would be the kind of program that is consistent with what the NRA advocates and many gun owners believe. In fact, such a focus on minorities would be quite smart for conservative and libertarian causes.
People would do well to remember that some of the first gun control laws in the US were Jim Crow laws. Tubman (new $20 bill), the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, Douglass, and many others carried guns and viewed them as important to black liberation and self-protection.
So a link to this article and to the Yes Men NRA video on YouTube were tweeted with appropriate hashtags.
The Supreme Court has explicitly included non-firearms and there have been court cases over knife regulations related to it. Unless they're non-fighting knives (i.e. made only for cooking, like a paring knife), they're arms.
Do you just make up your "facts" out of thin air, without even a quick google search to confirm them?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
"a right that can be exercised for free."
Free as in libre, not as in beer. And your whole argument that the government should give out guns reeks of a poorly done troll - if you're serious, you're an idiot.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Pedantry: voting is not a Constitutional right in the sense that bearing arms is. The Constitution says nothing about a right to vote, except in a reference to eligibility established by individual states.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That's the job of the left and secular humanists.
Yes it is a joke but the fact that it looks authentic to the point it can confuse the typical person is the reason the NRA is threatening legal action. Furthermore what this site is suggesting is likely outright illegal under the Brady Act; as a straw purchase, which the NRA, whether you like them or not, would obviously never advocate.
If we could just eliminate the first amendment, theat would be great.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You got a trademark on that word, guy? If not, I think I'll start using it to apply to libertarians of the stupid variety. I suppose I could use Libertards, but that still seems ambiguous.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Flamebait"? I'm surprised at the number of posters that are "enthusiastic" about gun ownership rights and their responses to the various posts. Maybe somebody who considers my root post flamebait can explain why.
It's the concept of screaming down your opposition. If a person dares to post anything remotely non NRA supporting, they'll swarm on them like crocodiles on a wildebeest. It's irresistable to them.
To a certain segment of the population, disagreement equals trolling or flame bait. Oddly enough, there are folks on the left that do the exact same thing. You think these two groups would find common ground in that. Watch what happens to this post in 3...2...1.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And, in fact, Federal government funds may not be used to pay for an abortion.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Cable companies need to run cable, which mean they need some sort of government license to use public property and sometimes to cut through private property. This means they need an agreement with local government, and local governments commonly require public access channels in the agreement. They are not a case of government forcing them in the sense you seem to mean.
The government can't force gun makers to give away free guns. The government could buy guns from them and give them to people (spending for the general welfare), or a contract between a gun maker and the government could require a certain amount of free guns to be available to citizens.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Rights can be things people have to pay for. If the government decides we all have a right to health care, the government can pay enough money to health care providers to cover it. In the long run, if providing X isn't too icky, paying enough money will result in enough X. Aside from how it is administered, I don't see much difference between a right to health care and a right to freedom of press. Heck, the Bill of Rights asserts that we have the right to a jury trial and legal counsel in certain situations, and those have to be paid for.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No, your argument is more like one a friend of mine made. He said that, if it was his right to marry whom he pleased, he wanted Dorothy Parker as she was nearly a century ago, and it was the Government's job to make it happen. (Personally, I don't think he and Dorothy would get along that well, but that's only one man's opinion.)
You have the right to bear arms. You have the right of freedom of the press. These are restrictions on what the government can do, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, and what these mean is that you can bear any arms you can acquire and print what you like on a press you own or rent or borrow or whatever.. (You do have the right to an expensive trial with a jury and legal counsel in some circumstances, but the government is not required to supply you these in general; it simply may not try you for certain things without providing them.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thanx for your comments.
Slashdot is an interesting community. People are generally at a much higher than the average poster/board but you still get a lot of anger when somebody challenges other people's world views.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Thanx for your comments.
Slashdot is an interesting community. People are generally at a much higher than the average poster/board but you still get a lot of anger when somebody challenges other people's world views.
And keeping in mind, that I am an enthusiastic gun owner and user, I fell that I have an insight into the psyches of many of the overly enthusiastic.
I'm just not at core a frightened person.
And miraculously, my post above is still sitting at 2.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.