WaGuns.org

kf7mjf wrote:

never_to_much wrote:Question here. We're all talking about the Internet and the fcc. I can go on amazon get a ham radio but in order to operate it I need a license to do so legally. (Correct me if I am wrong here.) Which is something that was implemented by the federal government. They limit what words and terms you can use on open airways. How long until that gets applied to interest users. They can figure out what radio channel you're broadcasting from. You have an IP address sure you can use ghost accounts or even if you know the dark stuff you can go there. The federal government that is not regulated of its power is one to be feared. And it's a good thing to question them.

Ask yourself why broadcast signals are regulated as to content, and why telephone conversations and internet conversations are not.

Do you fear that you will not be able to say certain things over a telephone?

Then why worry about it on the internet?

And as for transmission limitations, some of the stuff applied to ham radio is meant to restrict it from being used for commercial means, some of it is rooted in decency laws, which are rooted in stupid Olde Timey moralism. That in fact is the root of most broadcast restrictions outside of breaking up different types of radio services, commercial bands, etc... in other words, nothing like the internet. Or telephone.

Radio was the Internet of its time. That's what I was trying to get at.

It like cable TV you can get the premium package and get playboy but you have to pay more. There is free tv the bunny ears and that digital box converter. But to get the good stuff you better pay an independent company to get that play boy channel. Is that where the Internet will eventually get to in a matter of time? The government does like to do things rapidly

Radio was not the internet of it's time.

Comparing radio to a regulated utility is apples and oranges.

And the "good stuff" that you describe having to pay extra for is exactly what Net Neutrality is designed to prevent, that is to say, having to pay extra to an ISP to access certain content, as opposed to paying the creator of that content to access it. Comcast demanded Netflix pay them money in order not to have their content throttled. Now, they are not allowed to do that.

Guns4Liberty wrote:What you say is true regarding the FCC's abilities. I say it's a power grab not because the FCC couldn't previously stop ISPs from behaving anti-competitively, but because the push for net neutrality has rejected involvement of (and accountability to) the Legislative branch. I don't like unelected bureaucats thinking they are not beholden to our Representatives. I dislike even more when our Representatives are intentionally shut out of the process of rule-making despite that being their primary function and duty. So I see what the FCC did here as a sort of power grab - a middle finger to Congress, if you will.

That's why I was hoping congress would write something up. The Republicans control both houses so it should be pretty easy for them.

kf7mjf wrote:Fact 1. The internet is not owned by the FCC, nor can it be owned by any entity.

Fact 2. The FCC has no power to control the content over the internet, because it is a global network and cannot be controlled from any one single point.

Fact 3. Ties in neatly with Fact 2.

Fact 4. Again, the FCC has already gone on record as explaining what Net Neutrality is, so at this time, all four points I raised are not simple conjecture, no matter how badly you, Fox News and half of AM radio want them to be. Don't try to out propaganda me, it won't work.

This is an extreme example, but please see the Great Firewall of China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

I addressed the Great Firewall elsewhere, by pointing out that at best you can impose local control with varying degrees of success, but that inside and outside elements still continue to add content without restriction. Also, I will point out that the Great Firewall does not control the internet, but rather is a filter on connections within the nation. The internet is not controlled from one single point, and taking out any given point is simply damage to be routed around. Additionally, barring massive reworkings of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, I do not believe such a situation could be implemented here in the US (cue the usual crowd of ZOMG BUT WHAT IF AND THE GOV DID THIS AND ARE YOU REALLY THAT IGNORANT...")

kf7mjf wrote:

rayjax82 wrote:

kf7mjf wrote:..
5. See any of the zillion public statements on net neutrality by government officials.

If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. -drops the mic-

Well, I would point out I don't believe Obamacare compelled anyone to change their insurance providers. What the insurance providers did is between you and them. So nobody was compelled to change a plan by direct government order AFAIK...

Wrong. Many plans were deemed inappropriate based on Obamacare regulations and had to be removed from offering. The range of premium costs became fixed so that inexpensive, low utilization people had to pay for the expensive, high utilization people. Which caused many premiums to go up for a lower amount of service.

So, because Obamacare decided what could and could not be sold, Obamacare compelled people to change their insurance carriers, providers (aka doctors), and plans.

kf7mjf wrote:I addressed the Great Firewall elsewhere, by pointing out that at best you can impose local control with varying degrees of success, but that inside and outside elements still continue to add content without restriction. Also, I will point out that the Great Firewall does not control the internet, but rather is a filter on connections within the nation. The internet is not controlled from one single point, and taking out any given point is simply damage to be routed around. Additionally, barring massive reworkings of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, I do not believe such a situation could be implemented here in the US (cue the usual crowd of ZOMG BUT WHAT IF AND THE GOV DID THIS AND ARE YOU REALLY THAT IGNORANT...")

Your stuck to your beliefs that this has no bad ending or further more that the Constitution will be up held by the government.

you are just as bad as what your claiming the people that are questioning this by wholeheartedly telling them they are right wing extremist with tinfoil glued to their heads.

Reminder
Gun control act of 1968 is a gun ban and a direct infringement on the 2nd amendment. weather you agree with owing full auto or not its still a direct gun ban.

they have also eroded many other right in the Constitution.


I am not against this idea i just have many questions I understand that the government cannot own the internet but there are ways to control what is viewed there are ways around that. there is a lot of mistrust as gun owners towards the government.

1. GCA 68 has nothing to do with machine gun ownership.

2. No, unlike some running around inventing scenarios, waving around speed checks of their ISP, screeching about censorship, etc... I am pointing out the inherent fallacies in them, whilst they only have "ZOMG TEH EBIL GOOBERMINT" as a fallback.

Seriously, Comcast spent their money well on Ted Cruz. All he had to do was say "Obamacare for the Internet" and the vast right wing conspiracy machine obediently kicked into motion spewing out well, the results of this thread, because facts, common sense and logic mean nothing when corporate America says "jump".

kf7mjf wrote:1. GCA 68 has nothing to do with machine gun ownership.

2. No, unlike some running around inventing scenarios, waving around speed checks of their ISP, screeching about censorship, etc... I am pointing out the inherent fallacies in them, whilst they only have "ZOMG TEH EBIL GOOBERMINT" as a fallback.

Seriously, Comcast spent their money well on Ted Cruz. All he had to do was say "Obamacare for the Internet" and the vast right wing conspiracy machine obediently kicked into motion spewing out well, the results of this thread, because facts, common sense and logic mean nothing when corporate America says "jump".

My bad typo 1986 not 68

There was no GCA 86.

You are thinking the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act which passed in 1986.

kf7mjf wrote:There was no GCA 86.

You are thinking the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act which passed in 1986.

You and both know what it is. Its gun control act with a different name I admitted to a typo and your still Im right and will correct everyone no matter what. Have fun man

kf7mjf wrote:Here are the highlights what is inside the 8 pages the Republican commissioners are keeping us from seeing so far...

Policy on these things is what was voted on. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Release ... 1869A1.pdf

Thank you for posting this. Hadn't read this before and am eagerly awaiting the final rules to see how closely they align with this proposal fact sheet.

That said, I still don't like the gov't sticking its nose in here...too much chance and enticement for abuse of power.

never_to_much wrote:

kf7mjf wrote:There was no GCA 86.

You are thinking the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act which passed in 1986.

You and both know what it is. Its gun control act with a different name I admitted to a typo and your still Im right and will correct everyone no matter what. Have fun man

I know it is the Firearm Owners Protection Act, with the accompanying Hughes Amendment. I know that there has only been one piece of Federal legislation with the words "Gun Control Act" in it, and that was GCA 68, and I know that FOPA and GCA 68 are two entirely different beasts. What I do not know is that FOPA is what you claimed it to be.

kf7mjf wrote:Jesus fuck. I hope the next president is a goddamn republican so everyone will fawn and automatically approve of whatever it does, regardless of how good it is.

Well, if you're expecting that from me you can just go fuck yourself.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

I think what we have here is what I like to call the O'Reilly Factor. Fox News and Ted Cruz don't like this, so anyone else that happens to feel the same way must be just as fucking horrible as them. Great logic.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0