1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bad news for Tivo and Chromecast owners?

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by siratfus, Mar 18, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gweempose

    gweempose Active Member

    2,446
    4
    Mar 23, 2003
    Northbrook, IL
    That's because the MSOs donate a shi*load to their campaign funds.
     
  2. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    Yes, I know. We have essentially legalized corruption in our political system.
     
  3. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Exactly. Although CableCards are the least of the problems that this corruption creates. Our inaction on climate (and by extension energy) policy is by far the biggest and most important, and then there's probably 20 different things that could come after that, from our broken healthcare system to our incarceration laws and the war on drugs, to income inequality, to farm subsidies and obesity to the military industrial complex and war spending, to lack of meaningful gun control, to poor education, to lack of funding for transportation infrastructure, etc, etc.
     
  4. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    I pretty much agree with everything you said except for the gun control part. My (and the Supreme Court's) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it does bestow upon individuals the right to own and carry firearms for self-protection. So if you want meaningful gun control, then the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed.
     
  5. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    You don't have to appeal the 2nd Amendment to have reasonable Gun Control. Not only does it have little to do with individual ownership of firearms, but all rights have limits, i.e. the 1st Amendment. I'm also not talking about eliminating the right to own a gun. Just common sense stuff like eliminating background check loopholes, eliminating extended magazines and clips.
     
  6. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    I think laws like the ban on magazine clips over 10 rounds do little to prevent gun-related crimes and infringe too far on law-abiding gun owners. I think it would be far more effective to pass stricter laws regarding the use of a gun in a crime, something like automatically doubling the sentence for any crime committed with a gun. So, for example, if the penalty for robbing a convenience store is 2 years in prison, it would automatically be doubled to 4 years if you did it with a gun. If the sentence for every crime were doubled if a gun is involved and this policy became common knowledge, it would make some criminals think twice about using a gun.
     
  7. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Those laws might help a bit, but they aren't going to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Australia has excellent gun control laws that are very effective, but our government is too corrupt and the gun manufacturers/NRA is too powerful to pass anything like what they have. Banning high capacity clips or magazines alone does not limit gun owners' ability to have a gun in any way, as that alone doesn't limit the type of gun or any type of hunting or target/competition shooting. If you need 30 or 50 rounds to hunt or target shoot then you apparently suck at shooting your gun, and are going to burn up a lot of $$$$ of ammo really fast. Also, if you're going out in the woods hunting or to a range to go shoot, I don't think you're so lazy that you can't change magazines occasionally. I don't think banning high capacity clips will magically solve our gun problem in the US, but it's a really small first step that is relatively easy and common sense.

    There's a lot of suggestions of how to curb gun violence, and a lot of good ideas (and plenty not so good ones). Two ideas I don't hear much about are: 1) requiring liability insurance on any gun owned, just like a car, and 2) requiring that guns always be locked in a rated, approved gun safe when not in use or being transported, but of course the gun nuts would go completely off their rockers at either of those rather logical and simple ideas. OTOH, maybe the insurance and gun safe manufacturing lobbies...
     
  8. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    Yes, the Australian laws are very effective. After a shooting incident, the Australian government basically forced everyone to turn in their guns. You can't do that in this country without repealing the 2nd Amendment. The unfortunate truth is that middle-of-the-road gun control measures just don't work, because criminals will just ignore them. You either have to ban guns completely, making it almost impossible for anyone to get their hands on a gun like Australia and the UK, or you have to allow pretty much anyone who wants one to have one.

    The old federal assault weapons ban that expired back a few years ago had a limit of 10 round clips. That was absurdly low. My handgun is designed to hold a 15 round clip, and that's pretty standard for an average sized handgun. If a group of 3 or 4 guys breaks into my house, it's conceivable that I could need those extra 5 rounds to fend them off, especially if I am being nice and give them a few warning shots first.
     
  9. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    You can go middle of the road and significantly reduce gun violence if there are fewer guns that end up getting bought and sold illegally. The sheer number of guns is simply ridiculous.

    The whole burglar argument is not sound at all. More guns get used against the people who own them or accidentally hurt/kill people than to defeat burglars, so they should be locked up way out of reach in a gun safe, unless the owner is shooting recreationally or hunting. It is irresponsible to keep guns anywhere other than a well secured, properly rated gun safe. If you're really that paranoid after putting in proper deadbolts with strong strike plates and an alarm system, get a Taser or something. Or a German Shepherd. There is no legitimate reason that people need anything more than a 10-round clip/magazine for recreational or hunting purposes.
     
  10. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    Yes it is.

    Limiting gun use/ownership to hunting and recreational shooting is unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment includes the right to possess and use firearms for self-defense. And as you point out, "The sheer number of guns is simply ridiculous." There are so many people with guns in this country, that to not have one for self-defense is almost reckless. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed and nobody in the country had guns, then I would feel a lot safer without one. Unfortunately, that isn't reality.

    Not always. It depends on the situation. Some people have no young children or live completely alone. There is no reason for these people to keep their firearm locked in a gun safe.

    Never bring a Taser to a gun fight.

    I'm allergic to dogs.

    You don't have to show a need to exercise a right. But regardless, as stated previously, limiting gun use/ownership to hunting and recreation is unconstitutional, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect to need more than 10 rounds to properly defend yourself (or others) in certain situations.
     
  11. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    No it is not. Having guns that are not locked in a gun safe laying around is far more dangerous than they are helpful. It's fine if people enjoy shooting as a sport or hunting, but it is irresponsible to keep guns that aren't locked away when not in use (or related activities like maintenance).

    The 2nd Amendment gives a well-regulated militia the right to possess and bear arms, not any one person. The problem is, how do you define a well-regulated militia? Could you and your buddy down the street pay $99 to form an LLC or a 501c3 called the "xyz street militia", and thus be granted a constitutional right to have guns? I'm not sure what the answer to that is. It depends on what the legal meaning of "well-regulated" means in the context of an organization under US law. However, I'm not suggesting that we eliminate the ability for individuals not in a militia to own guns (since that would be easily circumvented anyways, as people in every state would just form a militia, and people could pay a nominal fee of $100/year or something to be part of it and thus have guns). However, we need some common sense laws about who can get guns, what types of guns they can get, what types of magazines and clips they can get, how guns are registered, stored, and insured, and the like.

    I do not own firearms. I am not interested in hunting or shooting (although we need open season on deer around here, it's getting ridiculous!), hence I don't own any firearms, and I never will. If I feel that crazy paranoid, I will get a taser or some other non-lethal defense device.

    Someone could break in an steal them. It's a lot harder to steal a whole gun safe, especially a big one.

    Tasers are better defense weapons, as they are non-lethal and can be used before you're completely sure who or what you're shooting at.

    Then don't get a dog.

    That's ridiculous. If you can't shoot something or someone with 10 rounds, you should learn how to shoot. That's why the wannabe gangsters in Chicago have 30 round clips, they suck at shooting, so they often need 30 rounds to even injure someone.

    Unfortunately, this country has absolutely no guts in terms of regulating guns and keeping them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. However, that's just one little symptom of the larger corruption of government, which I think is how this discussion started.
     
  12. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    The Supreme Court of the United States (and I) disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. See District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    "Holding: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
     
  13. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    I've studied the 2nd Amendment at some length, and I know what it says and what it doesn't.
     
  14. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    Apparently not.
     
  15. steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    10,722
    0
    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    When did this forum turn into the Happy Hour? :p
     
  16. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Well, I have, and I know what it says and what it doesn't. The problem, like I said above, comes in determining what a militia is.

    However, I don't think it really matters, as virtually no one, not even the supporters of the most strict gun control, want to stop individuals from owning guns, they just want to put reasonable restrictions on people who shouldn't own guns, or on types of guns that people shouldn't own.
     
  17. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    Actually, it has nothing to do with determining what a militia is. Back when I was in law school, there was considerable debate about just what the 2nd Amendment actually meant due to the lack of Supreme Court case law on the subject. But since then there have been 2 landmark Supreme Court cases that have now told us exactly what the legal meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, and participation in a militia has absolutely nothing to do with the right to own a gun for personal self-defense. You might want to re-read the Supreme Court's case law on this point.

    We already have reasonable restrictions on what types of guns people can own. For example, you can't own a fully automatic machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun. Further restrictions would be unreasonable.
     
  18. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    If you want to go all 2nd-Amendment on a discussion about gun rights (which I don't think is really relevant, as what interpretation you end up in only affects the most stringent forms of gun control that few, even staunch gun control advocates, would support), then you have to look at what the 2nd Amendment guarantees. It guarantees a "well-regulated militia" the right to bear arms. So the whole thing thus depends on what the heck a "well-regulated militia" actually IS. Based on the way the 2nd Amendment is written, you and your friend down the street forming an LLC or 501c3 that is called the "something something militia" doesn't seem far-fetched at all to me.

    Further restrictions would not be unreasonable at all, i.e. the assault weapons ban, which we had for a while until it ran out, and the politicians in Washington wouldn't renew it.
     
  19. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    We seem to be going round and round in circles, but I'm going to try one more time since you are just wrong about this. The full text of the 2nd Amendment is:

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Now, the introductory "militia" clause that you keep referring to certainly is there, but its exact meaning is very ambiguous, and Constitutional scholars and historians have been debating its meaning for over a century. Even so, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter as to what the text of the Constitution means, and they have decided that the introductory clause is essentially meaningless. It is certainly your right to disagree with the Supreme Court's determination, but their determination is the law of the land unless/until a future Supreme Court reverses that decision or until the text of the Constitution is changed through a Constitutional amendment.

    You and I clearly disagree about what is and is not reasonable, but ultimately it will be the Supreme Court that determines that.
     
  20. daveak

    daveak Series 3 Novice

    8,320
    39
    Mar 23, 2009
    This all sounds like bad news for TiVo and Chromecast users. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page