AR Ammo/Internet neutrality

[TGHusker]

 

Been away a bit- so sorry I missed the discussion after starting the thread. Doomsday prepping takes an insane amount of time. I agree with Mark Cuban. The worst case scenario is always the risk of regulation which never keeps up with the times- let the market swing and make its own adjustments. Let's say the government wanted to be in the plasma/lcd tv business, what do you suppose we would be paying for or viewing (quality) on those at the moment?

 

The internet is a free domain and cannot be controlled by government. The government has no right to control the information provided over the internet. They do wish to charge/or decide whom will get a license to conduct internet sites. Some of you believe the government is always inherently good. Do you agree with them copying on your conversations/writings now? You say, you have nothing to hide, yet if it was your neighbor hacking into your phone or email- you would surely say it is an invasion of privacy.

 

Controlling the internet is a large price to pay to think you are receiving faster broadband service. Americans use more band width than any other nation in the world. Our speeds are fine, and let the market sort that out. Yes, some foreign capitals have faster internet than a few cherry-picked handful us towns.

 

People often react poorly to being censored by the government- look at China or Suadi Arabia that have a tendency(government) to do harm to those that use political satire against them.

 

I realize many here does not think the government is big enough and can do so much more for its public. Heck, we got casinos in Iowa to help with the children's and the schools. Have Iowans property taxes receeded? I think this week they just added another dime for their gas tax. just think what will happen once the government seizes control of the net.

Ok, first off the government controls no information over any medium. Over the air broadcasts are not even controlled, though they do have certain standards they are to adhere to as the stations lease the band from the government. And there is zero control over cable networks. As the FCC has to endlessly remind people when they file complaints over content for something like the MTV music awards.

 

Now, without new neutrality, the monopolies would have direct control over what you have access to. Say Comcast decides to get all puritanical, they could throttle porn or atheist websites down to be unusable. That can not happen now, but it very well could without net neutrality.

 

Nothing about Broadband Internet being classified as a utility has any form of connection to what is on a website, who hosts or creates it in any way, shape, or form. Your understanding of what the internet is and how if functions is more than a little uninformed. And none of this changes. What this means is you will actually notice, wait for it, absolutely nothing. The internet will continue on exactly how it has always has. What it prevents is greedy monopolies from having control over what you will see on the web. Without net neutrality we would not have Netflix or Youtube, or Pandora, or any streaming video at all when you really want to get down to it.

 

Our internet sucks compared to the rest of the developed world. What we get, for what we pay for, lags so far behind, its not even funny. And there are plenty of places that still do not have access to true broadband internet. They won't in fact when the definition changes the minimum speeds needed to be called broadband or high speed. And many people have no options on internet choices, they have whichever monopoly controls their town.

 

News Flash. You already pay taxes on your web access, go read your bill. If you want to discuss tax usage, that is for another thread.

News Flash. The NSA already monitors the internet.

News Flash. The First Amendment still applies to the internet in this country.

 

And lastly THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET WITH NET NEUTRALITY BEING ENFORCED! Get this BS out of your head, leave your bunker, turn off Fox News and stop listening to people who stand to make a mountain of money if net neutrality dies.

 

Good review.

[knapplc]

Been away a bit- so sorry I missed the discussion after starting the thread. Doomsday prepping takes an insane amount of time. I agree with Mark Cuban. The worst case scenario is always the risk of regulation which never keeps up with the times- let the market swing and make its own adjustments. Let's say the government wanted to be in the plasma/lcd tv business, what do you suppose we would be paying for or viewing (quality) on those at the moment?

 

The internet is a free domain and cannot be controlled by government. The government has no right to control the information provided over the internet. They do wish to charge/or decide whom will get a license to conduct internet sites. Some of you believe the government is always inherently good. Do you agree with them copying on your conversations/writings now? You say, you have nothing to hide, yet if it was your neighbor hacking into your phone or email- you would surely say it is an invasion of privacy.

 

Controlling the internet is a large price to pay to think you are receiving faster broadband service. Americans use more band width than any other nation in the world. Our speeds are fine, and let the market sort that out. Yes, some foreign capitals have faster internet than a few cherry-picked handful us towns.

 

People often react poorly to being censored by the government- look at China or Suadi Arabia that have a tendency(government) to do harm to those that use political satire against them.

 

I realize many here does not think the government is big enough and can do so much more for its public. Heck, we got casinos in Iowa to help with the children's and the schools. Have Iowans property taxes receeded? I think this week they just added another dime for their gas tax. just think what will happen once the government seizes control of the net.

 

What?

[Vizsla1]

The problem with this argument is that none of the things the some of you are arguing are happening; and if they did, thanks to the new government meddling voted into by the FCC, there is now no option for a free market solution. Its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and now we all get to pay for it with higher taxes.

 

You like Google delivering broadband at crazy speeds? Guess what, they aren't going to do it now outside of their handful of test markets. You want Verizon FIOS in your neighborhood? Sorry, why would they expand FIOS when thanks to these new rules they don't know if they're going to be able to make a profit on it.

What some of you are failing to realize is this will be similar to Obamacare- we now have a record on how that has gone. Special considerations, higher costs and abilities to opt out of it were given based on political favors- think of many of these unions, think of the tuna business in Nancy Pelosi district, think of our own US Congress. Don't be fooled by shiny things like a magpie. Keep an open mind and do the research on what National Healthcare has cost this country-- many broken government promises. Do you think your health records are more private now that they are on EMR (electronic medical records)? How look until those things are hacked by someone in order to keep one of you in line. Kinda of like a ban on Huskerboard (with warnings of course) or being a Putin critic in Russia.

 

For the poster up above - The governments of China, Russia and North Korea already had control of the telecommunications industry. They didn’t need to nationalize it with a law that they gave a fun and wonderful sounding name by putting the word “neutral” in it. Net Neutrality is the nationalization of a private industry. It is the first step towards the censorship you don’t think we will have. Let me break it out to you, because you don’t understand that the new game…the one that the Fabian Socialist invented in the early 1900′s was one of creeping communism through regulation. Step one, make it public. Step two, regulate it. Step three, control it. That’s that.

 

For 20 years the government kept its grubby, inefficient hands off one of the greatest thing to happen to mankind, and we've gone from dial-up connections to downloading movies in our cars. Under the FCC, it took AT&T over 20 years to implement touch-tone dialing (they had it in the 50's, and they CHARGED you extra for it). Mark my words, the government will screw this up too.

Thank god HB is still free.

[strigori]

The problem with this argument is that none of the things the some of you are arguing are happening; and if they did, thanks to the new government meddling voted into by the FCC, there is now no option for a free market solution. Its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and now we all get to pay for it with higher taxes.

You like Google delivering broadband at crazy speeds? Guess what, they aren't going to do it now outside of their handful of test markets. You want Verizon FIOS in your neighborhood? Sorry, why would they expand FIOS when thanks to these new rules they don't know if they're going to be able to make a profit on it.

For 20 years the government kept its grubby, inefficient hands off one of the greatest thing to happen to mankind, and we've gone from dial-up connections to downloading movies in our cars. Under the FCC, it took AT&T over 20 years to implement touch-tone dialing (they had it in the 50's, and they CHARGED you extra for it). Mark my words, the government will screw this up too. Thank god HB is still free.

In what fantasy world are you coming up with this? Google is going to continue to expand. Verizon stopped expanding FiOS quite a while back as it was not benefiting their stock prices. Same with AT&T UVerse. And what competition are you imagining exists today? If we had anyone in office with the balls of Teddy Roosevelt the telecoms would be charged with collusion and being a monopoly. Seriously, watch the John Oliver segment. You will learn something.

 

You want to know why AT&T didn't implement new tech? BECAUSE THEY WERE A MONOPOLY. It had nothing to do with the gov or FCC and everything to do with why would they spend money that they were not legally required to. When the bell system got broken up is when we started to have true innovation. The FCC does not block innovation. In fact they are pushing more in that they redefined "broadband" as 25/5. Which is a speed most of the land in this state does not have access to. This change will drive innovation, and spur competition, not limit it. These rules make it easier for a company to expand into another area, not harder.

 

Care to actually think about why they are reclassifying broadband as a utility? What are the other utilities? Electricity, gas, water, and phone. They fall under a more strict governmental oversight because of their intrinsic importance to the citizens. The 'cost controls' that Ted Cruz and his bought and paid for ilk are using as scare tactics are not price controls the way they are spinning them. "Reasonable" is the term that is typically used. Its what an electric company can't decide to quadruple rates just to spike earnings and profits. They have a captive audience, and the service provided is critical or living in the modern world. And the internet has become almost as intertwined. For many, its more important than the phone. When a cable bundle in northern Arizona was cut last week, the northern part of the state lost the ability to even conduct business. Unless you already had cash in your wallet, you could not buy anything.

[Vizsla1]

^^ proving my point... "You want to know why AT&T didn't implement new tech? BECAUSE THEY WERE A MONOPOLY."-- we are going from a free enterprise system of internet to more of a government controlled environment. President Obama was quoted as saying, " we can not allow ISPs to restrict the best access or to pick winners/losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas." yet, oddly enough, Obama is more than happy to pick winners/losers in the marketplace for energy services. Winners, wind/solar, renewables- how many billions & billions have been lost to these failed technologies (many companies just so happen to be big supporters of dem party)- the sense of they have been around since the 60s and their out-put to input ratio is about the same). have you tried to use your government solar power yet during the evening or tonight anything besides a low watt light bulb at night? Yet the losers are natural gas, offshore drilling (which china has gladly accepted off the coast of Florida/Cuba), oil shale.

 

He similarly, picked winers and losers in the automobile market when he interfered. By spending billions and billions (80? still have about 20 billion unpaid- GM wishes to pay but govt won't take it to maintain some control), to avoid GM/Chrysler from becoming losers and forcing auto mfgrs to meet outrageous gas mileage standards, thus eliminating many market-choice driven products. Ok- so government after failing with Indian Reservations, Great Society, New deal failures, Obamacare, Veteran's hospitals, Quantitative Easing 1/2, are going to get this one right...

 

If one thinks the government increases competition instead of stifling it- we are in serious danger. That is what a free-market is designed to do.

 

I am done with this for a while- going to crawl back into my bunker and read "Atlas Shrugged" while listening to hours upon hours of Rush Limbaugh. Take the last word- and Go Big Red. The future of our program is very bright regardless what happens in this great country

[zoogs]

President Obama was quoted as saying, " we can not allow ISPs to restrict the best access or to pick winners/losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas." Yet, oddly enough, Obama is more than happy to pick winners/losers in the marketplace for energy services.

How is this, or the auto bailouts, related to net neutrality again?

[strigori]

^^ proving my point... "You want to know why AT&T didn't implement new tech? BECAUSE THEY WERE A MONOPOLY."-- we are going from a free enterprise system of internet to more of a government controlled environment. President Obama was quoted as saying, " we can not allow ISPs to restrict the best access or to pick winners/losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas." yet, oddly enough, Obama is more than happy to pick winners/losers in the marketplace for energy services. Winners, wind/solar, renewables- how many billions & billions have been lost to these failed technologies (many companies just so happen to be big supporters of dem party)- the sense of they have been around since the 60s and their out-put to input ratio is about the same). have you tried to use your government solar power yet during the evening or tonight anything besides a low watt light bulb at night? Yet the losers are natural gas, offshore drilling (which china has gladly accepted off the coast of Florida/Cuba), oil shale.

 

He similarly, picked winers and losers in the automobile market when he interfered. By spending billions and billions (80? still have about 20 billion unpaid- GM wishes to pay but govt won't take it to maintain some control), to avoid GM/Chrysler from becoming losers and forcing auto mfgrs to meet outrageous gas mileage standards, thus eliminating many market-choice driven products. Ok- so government after failing with Indian Reservations, Great Society, New deal failures, Obamacare, Veteran's hospitals, Quantitative Easing 1/2, are going to get this one right...

 

If one thinks the government increases competition instead of stifling it- we are in serious danger. That is what a free-market is designed to do.

 

I am done with this for a while- going to crawl back into my bunker and read "Atlas Shrugged" while listening to hours upon hours of Rush Limbaugh. Take the last word- and Go Big Red. The future of our program is very bright regardless what happens in this great country

So, instead of trying to actually debate me, you are changing the subject. Pretty typical when your argument has been soundly defeated.

[Landlord]

^^ proving my point... "You want to know why AT&T didn't implement new tech? BECAUSE THEY WERE A MONOPOLY."-- we are going from a free enterprise system of internet to more of a government controlled environment. President Obama was quoted as saying, " we can not allow ISPs to restrict the best access or to pick winners/losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas." yet, oddly enough, Obama is more than happy to pick winners/losers in the marketplace for energy services. Winners, wind/solar, renewables- how many billions & billions have been lost to these failed technologies (many companies just so happen to be big supporters of dem party)- the sense of they have been around since the 60s and their out-put to input ratio is about the same). have you tried to use your government solar power yet during the evening or tonight anything besides a low watt light bulb at night? Yet the losers are natural gas, offshore drilling (which china has gladly accepted off the coast of Florida/Cuba), oil shale.

 

He similarly, picked winers and losers in the automobile market when he interfered. By spending billions and billions (80? still have about 20 billion unpaid- GM wishes to pay but govt won't take it to maintain some control), to avoid GM/Chrysler from becoming losers and forcing auto mfgrs to meet outrageous gas mileage standards, thus eliminating many market-choice driven products. Ok- so government after failing with Indian Reservations, Great Society, New deal failures, Obamacare, Veteran's hospitals, Quantitative Easing 1/2, are going to get this one right...

 

If one thinks the government increases competition instead of stifling it- we are in serious danger. That is what a free-market is designed to do.

 

I am done with this for a while- going to crawl back into my bunker and read "Atlas Shrugged" while listening to hours upon hours of Rush Limbaugh. Take the last word- and Go Big Red. The future of our program is very bright regardless what happens in this great country

 

 

 

Nominated for dumbest post of the year.

[Landlord]

Also I like the part where it was like "it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist", followed by talking about some weird misguided hypothetical future dystopian society that doesn't exist.

[Dr. Strangelove]

^^ proving my point... "You want to know why AT&T didn't implement new tech? BECAUSE THEY WERE A MONOPOLY."-- we are going from a free enterprise system of internet to more of a government controlled environment. President Obama was quoted as saying, " we can not allow ISPs to restrict the best access or to pick winners/losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas." yet, oddly enough, Obama is more than happy to pick winners/losers in the marketplace for energy services. Winners, wind/solar, renewables- how many billions & billions have been lost to these failed technologies (many companies just so happen to be big supporters of dem party)- the sense of they have been around since the 60s and their out-put to input ratio is about the same). have you tried to use your government solar power yet during the evening or tonight anything besides a low watt light bulb at night? Yet the losers are natural gas, offshore drilling (which china has gladly accepted off the coast of Florida/Cuba), oil shale.

 

He similarly, picked winers and losers in the automobile market when he interfered. By spending billions and billions (80? still have about 20 billion unpaid- GM wishes to pay but govt won't take it to maintain some control), to avoid GM/Chrysler from becoming losers and forcing auto mfgrs to meet outrageous gas mileage standards, thus eliminating many market-choice driven products. Ok- so government after failing with Indian Reservations, Great Society, New deal failures, Obamacare, Veteran's hospitals, Quantitative Easing 1/2, are going to get this one right...

 

If one thinks the government increases competition instead of stifling it- we are in serious danger. That is what a free-market is designed to do.

 

I am done with this for a while- going to crawl back into my bunker and read "Atlas Shrugged" while listening to hours upon hours of Rush Limbaugh. Take the last word- and Go Big Red. The future of our program is very bright regardless what happens in this great country

Sorry, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but this is very typical anti-government talk even if it's in your best interest. You really don't understand what net neutrality means. It is NOT the government controlling the internet, it simply guarantees that ISPs will not be allowed control internet speed and change the prices as they see fit.

 

Now go and put your tin-foil hat back on.

[VectorVictor]

 

^^ proving my point... "You want to know why AT&T didn't implement new tech? BECAUSE THEY WERE A MONOPOLY."-- we are going from a free enterprise system of internet to more of a government controlled environment. President Obama was quoted as saying, " we can not allow ISPs to restrict the best access or to pick winners/losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas." yet, oddly enough, Obama is more than happy to pick winners/losers in the marketplace for energy services. Winners, wind/solar, renewables- how many billions & billions have been lost to these failed technologies (many companies just so happen to be big supporters of dem party)- the sense of they have been around since the 60s and their out-put to input ratio is about the same). have you tried to use your government solar power yet during the evening or tonight anything besides a low watt light bulb at night? Yet the losers are natural gas, offshore drilling (which china has gladly accepted off the coast of Florida/Cuba), oil shale.

 

He similarly, picked winers and losers in the automobile market when he interfered. By spending billions and billions (80? still have about 20 billion unpaid- GM wishes to pay but govt won't take it to maintain some control), to avoid GM/Chrysler from becoming losers and forcing auto mfgrs to meet outrageous gas mileage standards, thus eliminating many market-choice driven products. Ok- so government after failing with Indian Reservations, Great Society, New deal failures, Obamacare, Veteran's hospitals, Quantitative Easing 1/2, are going to get this one right...

 

If one thinks the government increases competition instead of stifling it- we are in serious danger. That is what a free-market is designed to do.

 

I am done with this for a while- going to crawl back into my bunker and read "Atlas Shrugged" while listening to hours upon hours of Rush Limbaugh. Take the last word- and Go Big Red. The future of our program is very bright regardless what happens in this great country

Sorry, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but this is very typical anti-government talk even if it's in your best interest. You really don't understand what net neutrality means. It is NOT the government controlling the internet, it simply guarantees that ISPs will not be allowed control internet speed and change the prices as they see fit.

 

Now go and put your tin-foil hat back on.

 

 

I wish I would have bought stock in Aluminium suppliers before the Net Neutrality vote took place.

[BigRedBuster]

Naaa....you would have had to go back to somewhere in the 70s or 80s to get in front of the many political conspiracy theories over that time. Aluminum was already in short supply.

[Saunders]

So yeah, this ammo ban is friggin stupid. The whole thing is based on flat out falsities and BS. It's drying out supplies and driving up costs. f'ing politicians.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/proposed-ban-on-popular-bullet-triggers-run-on-ammo-sales/

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/2/white-house-says-ammo-ban-will-save-cops-lives/

[ZRod]

But really, why does anyone need an assault rifle?

[Saunders]

But really, why does anyone need an assault rifle?

Is this a serious question? Because if you want to get down to it, an "assault rifle" is a military rifle, not sold to civilians (unless you're rich). The AR-15 (what civilians can buy) is a rifle that's functionally no different than a rancher rifle that's been around for 50 or so years.

 

Neither of those have anything to do with this ammo ban. It's based on bad science and fear mongering. Bascially, akin to the the guy who called Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet."