dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-02-20 14:27:49: A month or so ago Time Warner Cable proudly proclaimed that the company would be banning some gun ads, specifically "ads showing semi-automatic weapons and guns pointed at people. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next
ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

1 recommendation

It's their right.

Comcast and NBC are a private company. They have the right to choose what they broadcast.

However, one should remember their actions when viewing their purported "neutral" coverage of related issues.

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: It's their right.

said by ptbarnett:

Comcast and NBC are a private company. They have the right to choose what they broadcast.

And in fact, live under tighter restrictions (FCC, FTC, etc.) on what they may publicly display then any individual, and most other businesses.
They are constantly admonished for failing to be MORE diligent in their restriction in the broadcast of actual events like nipple slips and violent crime scenes and should be at least as strict in ads and dramatic content over which they have full control.
ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

1 recommendation

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

They are constantly admonished for failing to be MORE diligent in their restriction in the broadcast of actual events like nipple slips and violent crime scenes and should be at least as strict in ads and dramatic content over which they have full control.

I not aware of the FTC or FCC asking NBC/Comcast to not broadcast commercials for firearms or sellers of firearms.... at least not yet. This is NBC's decision, and the responsibility is solely theirs.

But, one has to wonder why they aren't applying their standard for advertising to the dramatic content they control -- either directly or indirectly.

[Yes, that's a rhetorical question]

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: It's their right.

said by ptbarnett:

I not aware of the FTC or FCC asking NBC/Comcast to not broadcast commercials for firearms or sellers of firearms...

I did not say that.
I said they are expected to edit/avoid imagery that conflicts with social/religious/morality stances that our leadership claims are important.
(an unnaturally high percentage of religious, and political leaders seem to get caught violating these same issues as compared to the general population)

Gun control happens to be the current hot button issue, hence the broadcasters new standards (something like the emperors new clothes )

IMHO
Any gun advocate who doesn't see a problem with the current lack of EFFECTIVE gun control, or who continues to bluster ahead as the NRA does, is doing responsibly gun owners a disservice which will likely lead to even greater (and possibly less sensible) regulations.

mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV

Re: It's their right.

what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits

Re: It's their right.

said by mikedz4:

what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?

Be ok with me but...
what specific group is harmed by those? A how would banning those ads prevent specific harm?
that is the gov't can't just choose to block anything on a whim, the cigarettes ban came after specific evidence showed the Tabaco companies depended on those ads to show minors "smoking is cool", and that NO general benefit came from cigarettes and it took many years to push that through congress.
they would like to ban smokeless cigs, but it could be seen as a cessation tool, and a couple beers aren't harmful to most people (In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health)

But this isn't a gov't ban it's comcast sensing a shift in public opinion about guns, and they are right... there are few reasons to NEED assault style semi-auto rifles with large15-45 round magazines, not for home defense, not for skilled hunting, not for target practice.. nothing that taking a second or 2, every 9 seconds can explain other than that empowered "I can take you all out" feeling that, that sort of weapon gives people, that all to often comes out in anger and occasionally leads to the killing fields.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

(In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health)

And there is nothing like a few hours of plinking, or target shooting, with the aroma of gunsmoke in the background, to relax a guy, or gal!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4

Re: It's their right.

you can practice changing magazines too.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

you can practice changing magazines too.

I mostly use clips; both the Springfield variety, and the Garand type.

M1903A3 Springfield clip.

M1 Garand clip.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4

Re: It's their right.

And each has less than 10 rounds, which should be plenty to handle any problem you are likely to encounter in this country, with out allowing the" just kept pulling the trigger" bloodbaths that seem so common now.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

And each has less than 10 rounds, which should be plenty to handle any problem you are likely to encounter in this country, with out allowing the" just kept pulling the trigger" bloodbaths that seem so common now.

And I can shoot with those Springfield clips at the rate of 10 - 11 rounds per minute until I am out of clips.

Both at Cleveland Elementary School, in Stocton, CA (Jan., 1989) and Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT (Jan., 2013), the shooters reloaded multiple times.

Oh! Hark! Look at the commonalities! Maybe we should ban January! But wait! Columbine didn't happen in January of any year; i happened in Jefferson County, CO!! So ban state names beginning with the letter, "C"!!!

Seriously, what the Australian and English experiences show us is that any U.S. Pol who promises not to take my firearms either isn't serious about replicating those experiences, or lying through their teeth. My money is on the latter.

And Comcast/NBC/Hollywood are simply being self-righteous hypocrites in this affair.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits

Re: It's their right.

said by NormanS:

.. the rate of 10 - 11 rounds per minute...

10-12 per minute isn't 1 plus rounds per second with a 30-50 round banana clip and a reload (new 30-50 round clip) in 2 seconds.
This isn't precision shooting, giving the prey/victims a chance, it's pure spray and pray killing.
If these people with these gun only killed themselves, it wouldn't be the problem of the currently competitive "taking as many as I can with me" or trying for suicide by cop.
The one factor that ends most of the shooting sprees is he kills himself OR the guns heat up and jam and that pause allows someone to take the gunman down usually a physical tackle not shooting him with a personal weapon, so, so much for the protection theory.

No you can't go by the date or the location (though the CDC has a interesting interactive map showing were murder by gun happens, stay out of NOLA a few very unfriendly people ruin the whole bunch) but the one commanality of all those and more is semi-automatic assault style weapon and assault style fantasies driving that final push for fame, so removing the access to those weapons is one of logical methods to reduce the killing sprees.
Unless you are suggesting it is their right.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

said by NormanS:

.. the rate of 10 - 11 rounds per minute...

10-12 per minute isn't 1 plus rounds per second with a 30-50 round banana clip and a reload ...

It is sufficient for lethal work.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

No semi-automatic "assault" weapon there.

No you can't go by the date or the location (though the CDC has a interesting interactive map showing were murder by gun happens, stay out of NOLA a few very unfriendly people ruin the whole bunch) but the one commanality of all those and more is semi-automatic assault style weapon and assault style fantasies driving that final push for fame, so removing the access to those weapons is one of logical methods to reduce the killing sprees.

Removing that weapon type won't stop mass shootings, it will only stop mass shootings with that weapon type.

You might say that Japan got it right when Hideyoshi Toyotomi banned firearms from Japan at the beginning of the 17th Century. No other country has such a low firearms death rate; but no other country has such a restrictive ban on firearms.

Are you prepared to ban the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States? Are you prepared to confiscate the 300 million firearms currently extant in the United States? If not, than you don't have your heart in making this a "safe" society.

Unless you are suggesting it is their right.

Logical fallacy: Argument reductio absurdum.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: It's their right.

you're comparing a trained marksman, (who actually recognized his own mental illness even as he proceeded to kill) to a series of very deranged "kids" with excessively capable semi-automatic weapons
said by NormanS:

No semi-automatic "assault" weapon there....
... Removing that weapon type won't stop mass shootings, it will only stop mass shootings with that weapon type.

A lot of people in Colorado and Connecticut and Arizona and Wisconsin, etc. would be happy to start with that.
Nobody expects to disarm any existing owner (barring threats, irrational behavior, or criminal activity), and most weapons would still be available with the hope of buybacks and voluntary turn-ins removing/reducing big clips and certain weapon and ammo types overtime (If you don't think your kids are responsible, you shouldn't will your weapons to them, or ebay them to persons unknown)

The idea that we shouldn't start the process with some particularly dangerous weapons, because some would still exist is silly Should we also sell fissionable material? just in case you feel really threatened , by the new neighbor or gang down the street

tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:37

1 edit
said by tshirt:

so removing the access to those weapons is one of logical methods to reduce the killing sprees.
Unless you are suggesting it is their right.

So instead they'll use shotguns which can wipe out an entire classroom in 5 secs.
quote:
loads of 12 gauge, 00 buck are commonly available in 8 to 18 pellets in lengths from 2.75" to 3.5".
00 buck is .33 caliber vs .22 caliber for the AR15. A shotgun typically holds five rounds which puts 40-90 projectiles down range in less than half the time needed to empty a 30 round mag. Using smaller sized buckshot will of course put even more projectiles down range. A shotgun is far more deadly in the situations these cowardly mass murderers typically choose.
--
RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: It's their right.

but it limits the range.
look, other than a magical all guns disappear, no ban will end gun violence, and no one with half a brain believes anything more than an "Assault weapon" ban is possible politically or practically.
And there are quite a few of us who don't believe a total ban is even desirable. but there are responsible gun owner who take care to control their own guns, and there are idiots who seem to believe leaving a loaded gun out and accessible to others including young children is their RIGHT. and those few( or many) damage the argument of total wild west freedom as fine, those days are gone.
BTW statistically Semi auto pistols are the most deadly, assault rifles about half that and revolvers and shotguns are both in a single digit low/ double digit range. CDC actual deaths since 2001. so in a perfect world we'd start with SA pistols but that isn't going to happen.
as friends of dick Cheney will tell you, a couple pellets here and there (like birdshot to the face) (almost) never kill you

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

... so in a perfect world we'd start with SA pistols but that isn't going to happen.

I own an SA pistol which, by your CDC stats, is in the "single digit low/ double digit range". Excuse my laughter, but I have normally seen "SA" applied to a certain "action" type. As in, "SA auto", or, "SA" revolver. For most firearms aficionados, "SA" means, "Single Action"; as in you must manually cock the piece before you fire it. The semi-automatic "Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1" is an example of an "SA auto". So also its replacement, the, "Pistol, Semiautomatic, 9mm, M9".

BTW, I believe the CDC calculation of "deadly" isn't accurate. It seems to be based on frequency of use, not on actual weapon firepower. The CDC "deadly" is more appropriately applied to the shooter, not the weapon.

P.S. I forgot to include the classic, and grandaddy of all SA handguns: The Colt "Model P, Peacemaker, M1873". I have a latter-day knock-off; the Ruger "New Model Blackhawk".

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: It's their right.

said by NormanS:

BTW, I believe the CDC calculation of "deadly" isn't accurate. It seems to be based on frequency of use, not on actual weapon firepower. The CDC "deadly" is more appropriately applied to the shooter, not the weapon.

Sorry I used SA to mean Semi-auto sorry I confused you.
I also applied "deadly" to the CDC chart to mean killed the most, because that's what counts...certainly the .44 magnum Dirty Harry revolver has more energy per bullet but they are either rarely used or not applied in a deadly way.
SEMI AUTOMATIC pistols and rifles are particularly deadly, largely due to the volume of bullets rather then size or energy of the bullet.
For the most part these are NOT great marksman, but do have high speed tools.
itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
said by tshirt:

And each has less than 10 rounds, which should be plenty to handle any problem you are likely to encounter in this country, with out allowing the" just kept pulling the trigger" bloodbaths that seem so common now.

You do realize 2 things:

1. The average (non sniper/military) person will not hit their adversary on the first try. Adrenalin, movement, etc will make you much less accurate than shooting at a paper target that does not move.

2. Few will end up dead on the first shot. You miss and get them in the arm all you did is piss them off. This is especially true of someone breaking into your house in a drug induced rage.

3. Why is 10 OK but 11-16 bad? You do realize it is trivial to switch magazines right? And there is this thing called a shotgun that shots hundreds of projectiles each time you pull the trigger.

Limiting magazine sizes is not the answer. Limiting types of weapons is not the answer either. Some horrific things happened while the assault weapons ban was in place (Columbine and others) so that doesn't work either.
whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
Our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events.

Thereisnospo

@comcast.net
The last time I checked the threat of tyranny is no less today than it was in 1900, 1800, or 1700.

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: It's their right.

said by Thereisnospo :

The last time I checked the threat of tyranny is no less today than it was in 1900, 1800, or 1700.

And having large stockpiles of weapons and ammo in the hands of individuals who believe THEY will know the right moment to strike out against the tyrannical gov't has done nothing to prevent that over the last 230+ years.
However more than a few of these /patriot/gun nuts and /or their children have struck out at SOMEONE in city halls and shopping malls and schools and theaters.
And thousands of innocents die every year.

Do you seriously believe that you and even several 100,000 like mind whackos will ever be organized enough, let alone well enough armed with semi-auto AR-15's to overwhelm the police, nation guard and US military to take over and prevent tyranny? (have you noticed the level of really sophisticated weaponry available to them as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan)
At what point do YOU think YOU might cross the line between well meaning patriot and domestic terrorist?

nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
said by tshirt:

said by mikedz4:

what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?

Be ok with me but...
what specific group is harmed by those? A how would banning those ads prevent specific harm?
that is the gov't can't just choose to block anything on a whim, the cigarettes ban came after specific evidence showed the Tabaco companies depended on those ads to show minors "smoking is cool", and that NO general benefit came from cigarettes and it took many years to push that through congress.
they would like to ban smokeless cigs, but it could be seen as a cessation tool, and a couple beers aren't harmful to most people (In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health)

But this isn't a gov't ban it's comcast sensing a shift in public opinion about guns, and they are right... there are few reasons to NEED assault style semi-auto rifles with large15-45 round magazines, not for home defense, not for skilled hunting, not for target practice.. nothing that taking a second or 2, every 9 seconds can explain other than that empowered "I can take you all out" feeling that, that sort of weapon gives people, that all to often comes out in anger and occasionally leads to the killing fields.

No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth. What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: It's their right.

said by nonamesleft:

No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth.

See, you are exactly the delusional paranoid that is convincing the general population that you and people like you are the problem, not the solution.

said by nonamesleft:

What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?

A really bad idea that quickly went from bad to worse, but in no way justifies making more, faster better weapons available and accessible to delusional people like Adam Lanza to use on the kindergarten children in Sandy Hook.
Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation

nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

said by nonamesleft:

No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth.

See, you are exactly the delusional paranoid that is convincing the general population that you and people like you are the problem, not the solution.

said by nonamesleft:

What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?

A really bad idea that quickly went from bad to worse, but in no way justifies making more, faster better weapons available and accessible to delusional people like Adam Lanza to use on the kindergarten children in Sandy Hook.
Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation

The 2nd amendment protects the 1st amendement without it, the 1st amendment goes bye bye, hence no more freedom of speech.
whoaru99

join:2003-12-17

4 edits
said by tshirt:

Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation

There already is and has been for about 80 years. It's called the National Firearms Act, which prohibits things like machine guns (automatic) weapons, sawed-off shotguns, bombs, missiles, large bore rifles, etc.

Just how many of the 80 million or so gun owners are involved in killing someone or are suggesting they should have things already banned by NFA? Point being, stop lumping the 99.9998% of good folks in the category of the lunatics and criminals that commit these acts by implying we are not reasonable and responsible.

People are easily distracted by shiny trinkets and our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events.

bTU

join:2009-04-22
Aurora, CO

Re: It's their right.

The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.
--
Heghlu'meh qaq jajvam!

tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:37

Re: It's their right.

said by bTU:

The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.

What confused even some pro gun folks is the provision on machine guns in the Firearms owners protection act. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Ow···tion_Act A machine gun must be registered before May 19 1986 in order to be legally owned by civilians. No newer full autos can be registered.

So how much hassle is it to own a class III firearm? I've heard that you need to have paperwork approved just to transport them somewhere and the Feds can inspect your place to make sure they are properly stored.
--
RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09
whoaru99

join:2003-12-17

1 edit
said by bTU:

The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.

What's your point? That a law abiding citizen can be trusted, despite allegations otherwise?

Hello??

tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:37

Re: It's their right.

said by whoaru99:

said by bTU:

The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.

What's your point? That a law abiding citizen can be trusted, despite allegations otherwise?

Hello??

I think his point is, you said
quote:
There already is and has been for about 80 years. It's called the National Firearms Act, which prohibits things like machine guns (automatic) weapons, sawed-off shotguns, bombs, missiles, large bore rifles, etc.
Technically they aren't prohibited, at least by the Feds. You just need to pass their requirements for owning them.
--
RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09
whoaru99

join:2003-12-17

1 edit

Re: It's their right.

I understand what was said, which is why I questioned the point with this...

That a law abiding citizen can be trusted, despite allegations otherwise?

99.999% of gun owners haven't shot anyone and ten times less than that haven't killed anyone. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are fine, upstanding citizens, despite insinuations and or allegations otherwise.
Expand your moderator at work

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

1 recommendation

said by tshirt:

And in fact, live under tighter restrictions (FCC, FTC, etc.) on what they may publicly display then any individual, and most other businesses.

But they are also using airwaves granted by the federal government for ultimate use by the people. The FCC already requires licensees to not discriminate in signing advertising content contracts, particularly to prevent requirements such as "no urban" or "no spanish" requirements.

Comcast and NBC are private companies. And I'm generally in favor of government staying out of telling businesses how to operate. However the government (both federal and local) have granted them a defacto monopoly or at least oligopoly both for the cable system as well as NBC. With that might come some responsibility for airing of commercials that they don't agree with, but are for legal and legitimate businesses.

••••

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI
said by ptbarnett:

Comcast and NBC are a private company. They have the right to choose what they broadcast.

This is entirely true.

Likewise I have the right to chose with whom I'll do business. For my Internet connectivity I have little choice, but, where video content is concerned: I have lots of choice. I have no subscription TV, but, were I to consider it, Comcast has removed themselves utterly and completely from any possible future consideration, with this move.

said by ptbarnett:

However, one should remember their actions when viewing their purported "neutral" coverage of related issues.

NBC is best-known, by some of us, as the media giant that makes stuff up. They did it years ago with the exploding truck fiasco. They did it more recently, but I don't recall the incident atm. (ISTR it involved some "artful" editing of some video footage, resulting in the segment appearing to be something completely other than what it really was.)

Comcast says they're doing this because it was NBC's policy. But it was Comcast acquired NBC, not the other way around. So Comcast's explanation is a bit disingenuous, in my view. Given NBC's past: It looks like they and Comcast will get along swimmingly.

Either way: Yes, both NBC (the initials of which many of us feel stands for Nothing But Crap) and Comcast (to whom many refer as "Comcrap" - coincidence?) have made it clear they are most definitely not to be trusted as fair, balanced or impartial media sources.

In short: Neither has any credibility, in my view.

Jim
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

Re: It's their right.

Comcast did acquire NBC but for the most part they still are pretty much separate companies.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by ptbarnett:

Comcast and NBC are a private company.

Also no longer even an "information provider", much less an "Internet Service Provider". They are now just a "media outlet", a part of the Hollywood Entertainment Conglomerate.

When I was looking for an alternative to "at&t Yahoo! HSI", I gave Comcast serious consideration. Had I chosen Comcast in April, 2011, I'd be shopping again; I'd even reconsider my concerns regarding AT&T.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4

The constitutional right to advertise...

...?
Freedom of speech is to prevent Gov't from masking your viewpoint and only applies in a very limited way to private institutions.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Congress shall make no law...

...Comcrap can do whatever it wants.

shimonmor
Premium
join:2000-12-30
Sedro Woolley, WA

5 recommendations

Hypocrisy

Will they ban programming "showing semi-automatic weapons and guns pointed at people"? If not, they are hypocrites. Among other things.

•••••••

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

Perfect idea for an ad.

Someone should put together an ad, featuring someone smoking, drinking hard liquor and pointing an M16 at someone.

I guess it could be a GoDaddy commercial or maybe Nascar.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com

•••••••••••••••••••
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Gun stores have ads?

I must admit I have never seen a gun shop or gun company ad on TV. I have seen guns advertised in magazines, but never on TV.

Though I guess Dirty Harry could be seen as one big ad for the .44 magnum. And it did in fact increase sales of the weapon.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

••••

jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR

Alcohol Ads?

Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than guns....by a long shot(hmmmm pun). Will they too ban alcohol and liquor ads? Not hardly because Ad revenue from alcohol sales dwarfs gun sale Ad revenue.

••••••

SlowFITL

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL

Their right, my right

It's Comcast's right to not show certain ads. It's my right to withhold my money from Comcast.

••••

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1

Comcast are hypocrites & liars

Comcast is just plain evil.
This is just another example.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Comcast could suffer from some amp outages in rural areas

Comcast taking a public stance on this issue could cost themselves some outages in rural areas. Those big line amps hanging from poles along the roadway could become targets for some target shooting by annoyed good old boys(i.e. drunken teens).
--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders.
cableman0327

join:2004-10-10
Westminster, MD

All Product Advertizing Should Be Banned

If Comcast or anyone else thinks Guns Kill & Not the People Behind the Gun, Then all Product Advertizing should be Banned, Specialty All those Vehicle Ad's.
waycoolphil

join:2000-09-22
Cathedral City, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: All Product Advertizing Should Be Banned

And that would help solve our fake bandwidth shortage. Imagine how must faster the Internet would be without ads and tracking. Cable/Sat would have no problem with pixelation because nothing would need to be compressed without all those ads. I say bring it on!

NOYB
St. John 3.16
Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1

But Wait ...

Don't the "experts" say violent movies, games and such don't influence people to be violent. Then how can an ad have so much influence?

Guess it must just be the fact that it is an ad that causes it to be so effective.

When will they ban the violent movies? Oh wait that is free speech. Not until violent movies stop being a cash cow will they be band too.

In my opinion; hypocrites

--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Complain About Overly Restrictive Tyrannical ISP ToS & AUP »comcast.net/terms/ »verizon.net/policies/
Say Thanks with a Tool Points Donation
westdc

join:2009-01-25
Amissville, VA
kudos:1

I Don't

watch or buy anything they advertise anyway - Not a problem for me.

PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast

Advertisements are not "free speech"

Although I have no problem with either gun stores, or advertising their products/services, I see no issue here.

Media outlets such as newspapers, magazines, radio and t.v. stations/networks have long refused selling ad space to certain types of products or services...primarily those that anger or alienate their target audience. Like it or not, these are touchy times to showcase anything to do with firearms...that is just the way it is.

You don't see a whole lot of advertising for Nevada cat houses...even in Nevada vacation ads...go figure! (Hey, who knows, maybe they would get more tourists if they did...).

Whether Comcast's policy turns out to be a good or bad decision solely hinges on whether they tick off more folks who want certain goods/services versus those who are "offended" by seeing them advertised. It is always a balancing act.

A good point made by a couple of people here is that if enough Comcast customers were ticked off by the lack of gun shop ads, and subsequently quit using Comcast, then they would probably re-think that policy.

However, I rather doubt that in today's climate that is likely to occur.
--
Deeds, not words
clone

join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

Re: Advertisements are not "free speech"

Anyone who is offended by something codified in the Bill of Rights needs to find somewhere to live more suitable to their liking. I've heard North Korea is nice this time of year.
Goldman

join:2002-06-21
Maumelle, AR

Re: Advertisements are not "free speech"

said by clone:

Anyone who is offended by something codified in the Bill of Rights needs to find somewhere to live more suitable to their liking. I've heard North Korea is nice this time of year.

Or they could buy a Delorean and go back to Hitler's pre-war Germany. No guns to worry about there.

NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

Well, sure...

because gun commercials drive people "crazy" (unlike non-gun commercials).

Mellow
Premium
join:2001-11-16
Salisbury, MD

Advertise elsewhere

Time to brush off those old mail lists, the PO wants/needs the money.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Advertise elsewhere

said by Mellow:

Time to brush off those old mail lists, the PO wants/needs the money.

And given the throngs that have stormed the gun stores to buy weapons and ammunition recently, they really don't need to do much advertising. Word of mouth has them selling out their inventory without ads.
--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Good

For all the bad Comcast does, at least they did something good. Even if it doesn't really affect anything, net-net. The gun crazies will still know where to buy the crazy guns.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

Beating a dead horse

Said it before say it again, these groups »w2.parentstv.org/Main/ have the FCC on frigin speed dial and this is the result when they can get any negative news and turn it into a campaign for "protecting the children". Anyone who doesn't believe that it starts with these groups is ignant (yes I spelled it wrong on purpose).

The only reason they did this is to avoid being a target (no pun intended) as the gun battle drums on.

Smokey
I'd rather be skiing
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Wild West

Sell NBC Outdoors

If this is the policy of Comcast, as enforcing NBC's policies, then Comcast had better make a move to sell NBC Outdoors, perhaps one of the largest "gun" channels on TV.

Not to do so immediately shows the hypocrisy that anyone familiar with Comcast knows is the very idea that Comcast has based their corporate philosophy on to date.
--
Para Bellum!!
Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Re: Sell NBC Outdoors

Comcast systems do even have all of the NBC channels.

I think maybe some teams should pull out of the CSN channels before comcast messes them up.
Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

So will the syfy channel have to give all any type of gun on

So will the syfy channel have to give all any type of gun on there shows.