Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to moby866
Re: What goes around, will come around
This kind of reminds me of the porno outfit in San Francisco
using the DCMA to sue people down loading their smut. Imagine copyrighted hooters and Hines. Well at least they wouldn't have to use fancy sniffing software to track this stuff. I get the idea KAZAA is trying to make as much money as they can before they go the way of NAPTSTER.
Talk about a den of thief's.
--
Low Brass & Irish Terriers rule, and I love the warm glow of a vacuum tube in the morning
[text was edited by author 2003-09-01 18:20:15] |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by Transmaster  :
Imagine copyrighted hooters and Hines.
* ignores Transmaster 's suggestion and imagines other copyrighted body-parts * said by moby866 :
If they enable people to steal, why are they crying about someone stealing from them?
Following that logic, it would be ok to kill the CEOs of gun manufacturers. After all, many of the products they sell have no purpose other than to end human life.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-02 02:16:13] |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| ""After all, many of the products they sell have no purpose other than to end human life.""
- Actually a great many of their products are designed and used to end animal life, not human life. Most non-hunting guns sold actually do not end ANY life, and are rather held by collectors who dont fire them or laypersons who only use them at the targeting range. The only people ending human life with firearms are police (who are justified in using lethal force in virtually every case) or criminals. Criminal murder accounts for an insignificant fraction of the number of rounds fired from legally obtained fired every year.
- I, personally, am in favor of strict gun control laws for urban areas (and no I don't belong to the NRA), but let us not make foolishly outlandish statements to push our respective views in this public forum, because such statements only undermine the credibility of whoever writes/types/says them.
- As for purposes that firearms have beyond "end human life", there's hunting and target shooting, as well as many others.
- All banning guns would accomplish is to force people to kill one another with axes/swords/spears/etc. Plenty of murder went on before guns were invented, and a great deal of murder occurs even today without any gun being involved. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| Oh puleeze! You expect me to believe that these are for hunting non-human animals? Or that they're collector's items? You really think that's credible?
In any case, my analogy stands. Just because there is an illegal purpose for a product, doesn't mean the producer gives up their rights. |
|
Urzumph
join:2002-11-06
Australia
| said by JTRockville :
Oh puleeze! You expect me to believe that these are for hunting non-human animals? Or that they're collector's items? You really think that's credible?
well, obviously, some of them, like the below example, would be for self defence.....
 |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: |  Uhhhh... actually, I thought that one was for hunting rabbits. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | reply to Kaltes
Oh Lord...here come the NRA idiots. |
|
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :
Oh puleeze! You expect me to believe that these are for hunting non-human animals? Or that they're collector's items? You really think that's credible?
What difference does it make? Have you been personally affected by the presence of these weapons? If not, then what's your point-- that some day someone might do something nasty with a weapon? The United States is built upon the principle of freedom, and sometimes freedom isn't safe. Sometimes freedom means making dangerous things available to all and punishing those who would intentionally harm others after the fact.
There is a reason that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our legal system. Without it freedom would be substantially curtailed in this country-- something that likely none of us want to see. People simply cannot go around randomly banning things because someone might use them to harm others; that isn't logical, and it smacks of an obsessive-compulsive personality on an ego trip.
Nobody ever said that freedom was the safest course of action for a society, but plenty of people have said that it is the best course of action. If you feel so unsafe with all these weapons floating around, perhaps the best course of action for you to take is to buy one and learn to use it properly yourself.
That being said, I would be one of the first people to agree that assault weapons do not have many legitimate uses, and that there are far too many mentally unbalanced people getting their hands on firearms these days. Solving these problems, however, does not mean taking weapons away from everyone in society. The problems do not get solved by banning certain classes of weapons either.
I will conclude by telling you the following: I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a member of any organization that advocates gun ownership or believes that everyone should own/carry/use guns. So why do I support the NRA in their efforts here? Simple-- because I do believe in freedom, and one cannot advocate freedom in bits and pieces. The Bill of Rights is not an ala carte menu at an expensive restaurant, and anyone who believes it is and advocates "freedom" is nothing but a hypocrite.
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| said by NOVA_Guy :
...assault weapons do not have many legitimate uses, and that there are far too many mentally unbalanced people getting their hands on firearms these days.
Which does point out a bad problem with the mental health care in our country, rather than a problem with guns IMO. |
|
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :
Uhhhh... actually, I thought that one was for hunting rabbits.
Do you mean...wabbits?
--
Cable Cable Cable...keep that cable rolling. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to NOVA_Guy
said by NOVA_Guy :
What difference does it make? Have you been personally affected by the presence of these weapons? If not, then what's your point-- that some day someone might do something nasty with a weapon? The United States is built upon the principle of freedom, and sometimes freedom isn't safe. Sometimes freedom means making dangerous things available to all and punishing those who would intentionally harm others after the fact.
I think you missed my point.
My point is: manufacturers don't give up all their constitutional rights, just because they produce something that can be used for illegal purposes.
IOW: Just because KaZaA can be used as a tool to violate copyright laws, doesn't mean they forfeit their copyright protections. said by NOVA_Guy :
I will conclude by telling you the following: I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a member of any organization that advocates gun ownership or believes that everyone should own/carry/use guns. So why do I support the NRA in their efforts here? Simple-- because I do believe in freedom, and one cannot advocate freedom in bits and pieces. The Bill of Rights is not an ala carte menu at an expensive restaurant, and anyone who believes it is and advocates "freedom" is nothing but a hypocrite.
As far as I can tell, we're advocating the same thing, but you seem to think I disagree with you. If gun manufacturers are protected, shouldn't software vendors also be protected? |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to JTRockville
If someone commits a crime with a gun, that person should be very severly punished, and lose all gun ownership rights permanently. There should be no leniency given here. I don't care if it is a first offense. Crimes of any kind committed with a gun should have 20 years tacked on to the standard sentence... and the 20 years should not be "reduceable".
However, to take away my rights because something in dangerous if put into the wrong hands makes no sense. Cars can be used as a dangerous weapon too, but we wait until they commit a crime while driving before we do anything - and driving is not a guarenteed right given in the Bill of Rights. What's the difference between a semi-automatic weapon being fired into a crowd vs a car traveling at 80mph into the same crowd?
A hunting rifle can do just as much damage as an assault weapon. This was proven in Va (very near me BTW) last year. Anyone with a scope on their hunting rifle could have done the same. Most assault weapons in circulation are kept in locked cases by collectors and rarely (if ever) fired.
I am a gun owner. Although I only own a shotgun, which I use for clay pigeon shooting, and a normal hunting rifle, I am against laws that take freedoms away from law abiding people. What do you think would happen if you ban guns? Only the criminals would have them. Do you really think criminals would not be able to get guns or even certain ones if they were banned? |
|
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :
As far as I can tell, we're advocating the same thing, but you seem to think I disagree with you. If gun manufacturers are protected, shouldn't software vendors also be protected?
Yes, I would agree with you here. It appears that, in this sense, we are advocating exactly the right thing.
Time to go get that second cup of coffee... 
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to mglunt
Honestly! Who said anything about banning guns?
The topic is Sharman Networks giving up their right to pursue copyright violations, *just because* their sofware *might* be used to violate someone else's copyright. IMO it's an outrageous notion. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs: | reply to kapil
They only follow the "gun control" idiots. |
|
