 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to ptbarnett
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. |
|
| 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] |
|
|
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to tshirt
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. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Clearwire Wireless
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Don't let the government touch anything else. We can't even trust them to do a task that a couple of 4th graders could do better. As far as advertisement goes they will just lose money and piss off a few customers and lose even more money.
The way they tell people to go screw themselves is by buying the company that allowed such advertisements and because it fits the political agenda it will slide right through.
Then when you decide to cancel your service the company will cry and complain that they will need to lay off a couple of employees due to bad sales and the government hands them a check with money that they pulled from your income for a bailout or to save jobs and it would look good on them and so will the company.
Since companies now are considered as people they can be on welfare too! |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to ptbarnett
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. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| reply to michieru
You really think Comcast/NBC is going to lose a lot of money over this??? The gov't may have granted NBC use of the airwaves but once it is on a private system, that is different. But also, since Comcast/NBC owns the network broadcasting those ads, they are free to choose who they allow and who they don't. |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to cdru
Free speech allows YOU to say "I LIKE GUNS", it does not guarantee that XYZ co. can sat" WE WANT TO SELL GUNS" in all venues.
This is a restriction of a product type regardless of the sellers age, gender, sexual identity, race or other protected class.
It would be a violation to say, only straight white males may advertise guns. |
|
| reply to TBusiness
What is a lot of money to you?
Yes, they are free to choose I was never against that. What I don't want is the government to get involved in the matter because the result would be much worse than a few blocked gun ads. |
|
| reply to tshirt
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? |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
2 edits | 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. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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 |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | you can practice changing magazines too. |
|
| reply to tshirt
The last time I checked the threat of tyranny is no less today than it was in 1900, 1800, or 1700. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to tshirt
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 |
|
Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
·Comcast
| reply to tshirt
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? |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Thereisnospo
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? |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to nonamesleft
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 |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | reply to NormanS
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. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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 |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
2 edits | 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.
|
|
