TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion
TiVo Community
Closed Thread
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-13-2014, 08:48 AM   #61
gweempose
Registered User
 
gweempose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northbrook, IL
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post

It's too bad that Congress is apparently unable to do anything useful these days.
That's because the MSOs donate a shi*load to their campaign funds.
__________________
(1) Roamio Pro
(1) Premiere XL4
(1) Premiere XL
(3) Minis

gweempose is online now  
Old 04-13-2014, 12:26 PM   #62
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by gweempose View Post
That's because the MSOs donate a shi*load to their campaign funds.
Yes, I know. We have essentially legalized corruption in our political system.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-14-2014, 05:26 PM   #63
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
Yes, I know. We have essentially legalized corruption in our political system.
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.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-14-2014, 05:44 PM   #64
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
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.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-15-2014, 07:07 PM   #65
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-15-2014, 07:24 PM   #66
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
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.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 05:25 PM   #67
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
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.
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...
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 05:56 PM   #68
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
Australia has excellent gun control laws that are very effective
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by tarheelblue32 : 04-16-2014 at 06:07 PM.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-17-2014, 05:56 PM   #69
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-17-2014, 07:47 PM   #70
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
The whole burglar argument is not sound at all.
Yes it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
It is irresponsible to keep guns anywhere other than a well secured, properly rated gun safe.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
If you're really that paranoid after putting in proper deadbolts with strong strike plates and an alarm system, get a Taser or something.
Never bring a Taser to a gun fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
Or a German Shepherd.
I'm allergic to dogs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
There is no legitimate reason that people need anything more than a 10-round clip/magazine for recreational or hunting purposes.
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.

Last edited by tarheelblue32 : 04-17-2014 at 07:55 PM.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-18-2014, 07:24 PM   #71
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
Yes it is.
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).

Quote:
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.
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.

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

Quote:
Never bring a Taser to a gun fight.
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.

Quote:
I'm allergic to dogs.
Then don't get a dog.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-18-2014, 07:44 PM   #72
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
The 2nd Amendment gives a well-regulated militia the right to possess and bear arms, not any one person.
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/Distri...mbia_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."
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 05:00 PM   #73
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
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/Distri...mbia_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."
I've studied the 2nd Amendment at some length, and I know what it says and what it doesn't.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 06:28 PM   #74
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
I've studied the 2nd Amendment at some length, and I know what it says and what it doesn't.
Apparently not.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 07:20 PM   #75
steve614
what ru lookin at?
 
steve614's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,722
When did this forum turn into the Happy Hour?
__________________
The Man Prayer: I'm a man ...... I can change ...... If I have to ...... I guess.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

F*CK CANCER!
steve614 is offline  
Old 04-20-2014, 08:38 PM   #76
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
Apparently not.
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.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-20-2014, 10:19 PM   #77
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by tarheelblue32 : 04-21-2014 at 02:23 PM.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-21-2014, 04:39 PM   #78
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-21-2014, 05:29 PM   #79
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
You and I clearly disagree about what is and is not reasonable, but ultimately it will be the Supreme Court that determines that.

Last edited by tarheelblue32 : 04-21-2014 at 05:36 PM.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-21-2014, 05:39 PM   #80
daveak
Series 3 Novice
 
daveak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,424
This all sounds like bad news for TiVo and Chromecast users.
__________________
Indecision may or may not be my problem.
- Jimmy Buffett
daveak is offline  
Old 04-22-2014, 04:33 PM   #81
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
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.
We are going around in circles. I stand by my interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment says.

Quote:
You and I clearly disagree about what is and is not reasonable, but ultimately it will be the Supreme Court that determines that.
Maybe. Or other courts. There are all sorts of ways that laws could get challenged, and with the gun manufacturer lobby/NRA lobby so strong, unfortunately, what few common sense laws get put in place probably will get challenged. And even if you can twist the 2nd Amendment to say that an individual who is not part of a militia has a constitutional right to bear arms, then you still have to determine what exactly that right entails, and what limits there are to it. All rights have limits, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, etc.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-22-2014, 06:09 PM   #82
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
I stand by my interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment says....And even if you can twist the 2nd Amendment to say that an individual who is not part of a militia has a constitutional right to bear arms, then you still have to determine what exactly that right entails
I'm still not sure if you're just trolling or are simply being willfully ignorant of the Supreme Court's recent rulings on the 2nd Amendment. Either way, I stand by my determination that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is inconsistent with the current Supreme Court's interpretation. Whether you want to admit that or not is inconsequential.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Old 04-23-2014, 03:44 PM   #83
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
I'm still not sure if you're just trolling or are simply being willfully ignorant of the Supreme Court's recent rulings on the 2nd Amendment. Either way, I stand by my determination that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is inconsistent with the current Supreme Court's interpretation. Whether you want to admit that or not is inconsequential.
I read it, interpreted it, and I stand by that interpretation. I'm not trolling.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline  
Old 04-23-2014, 04:09 PM   #84
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
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/Distri...mbia_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."
The Supreme Court also once held that an African-American was equal to 2/3 of a white person. Just because the Supreme Court says something, doesn't make it right or true. It is just the law, until the law is changed or the Supreme Court issues a new decision.

Of course, what ANY of this has to do with FireTV and the possible enhancement (or lack thereof) of Amazon streaming services on competitive devices is a mystery to me.
Diana Collins is offline  
Old 04-23-2014, 04:12 PM   #85
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
I read it, interpreted it, and I stand by that interpretation. I'm not trolling.
Do you understand that your interpretation is completely different than that of the current Supreme Court majority, and that when it comes to the law it's the opinion of the Supreme Court that matters? Because thus far in this discussion you have refused to acknowledge that minor little fact.
tarheelblue32 is offline  
Closed Thread
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |