Copying Hobby VHS tapes to DVD legalities

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:18:30 -0800 (PST), Twibil wrote:

But the fact is, I'm not a rabd left-wig anti-gun nut. Hell, I voted for Goldwater in '64, and to my everlasting shame, for Tricky Dick in '68 (my excuse: I was in the Tonkin Gulf as a hoist operator-gunner flying SAR missions in H-3s, and while I saw some news footage of the Dems in Chicago, I saw none of Tricky's fake "town hall" meetings. And I just couldn't stand that smarmy bastard Hubert. Since then, I will admit, the only Republican I've voted for was Pete McCloskey. Eight years ago I had good feleings about John McCain, and was sad to see him sell out to the Christian Taliban and Ayn Ranty economic royalists that currently run the GOP.
I have a bit of acquaintance with firearms, from black powder rifles to shotguns to a Walther P-38, a model 1911 .45, a S&W .38, on to M-60s, M-16s and M-79 blooper guns. I despise the hairspray substrates on the local news who describe police marking "bullet shells" [sic] at a crime scene, or who can't tell the difference between an automatic pistol and an automatic weapon. I don't want to restrict ownership of long arms, even semi-auto with small (5 round - like a Ruger .44) magazine size, I just want law enforcement to be able to track down those selling guns to gang bangers. I have no quibble with cities having strict requirement on pistol ownership and carry permits. If that makes me a rabid left-wing anti-gun nut, I suggest you reconsider your apparent classification of yourself as a centrist. If you feel any eejit should be free to buy a 12 gauge with a huge rotary drum magazine or an AK knock-off with a 30 round banana magazine that can be made full auto with little effort, or any one of varius TEC and UZI knockoffs, YOU are the nut.
Anytime you want to try making a coherent justification for the Tiahrt Amendment, have atcha - be interesting to hear it. Try to explain it to your nearest urban chief of police.
PS - next time you see Saxby Chambliss, tell him he's a man without honor and I'll meet him anytime, M-60s at 300 yards.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve sounds sensible and the basic disagreement I have is with 5 round mags. I think the 10 is fair for civilians and 15 for police.
Where I have problems is with the lawyers we elect that don't know which end of a weapon is which. Example, handguns have serial on frame. Glocks have a kit to retrofit the barrel and slide to a 22. This is legal as is changing the barrel. My local sheriff told me in a Glock you can't check rifling anyway. The people passing and writing these laws know nothing of what I have just said let alone the other thousand of things connected with firearms to make things safe and allow sane people to carry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Glock issue you mentioned if mostly an urban legend. Identifying a bullet fired through a polygonally rifled bore is more difficult but far from impossible. It actually turns out to be useful as far as crime goes because so few handguns use polygonal rifling that you are left with a very short list of possible guns. You pretty much narrow it down to Glock, H&K, Kahr, and Magnum Research.
As to the lawyers writing laws... geez. That is what gave us the "assault rifle" law. It was like a fashion show. They pick features that they believe make certain guns look scarier than others (e.g. just about any rifle Hollywood has used in an action film) and pass a law prohibiting them. They just ignored the fact that many other not so scary looking guns fire the same damn bullets. They also ignored the fact that so-called assault weapons are used in less than 2% of gun crimes to begin with.
And then they try to insist that they aren't engaged in a "death by a thousand cuts campaign" to ban firearms altogether.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Twibil wrote:

Just another American Fantasy.
The common man has never had control of the American Government. Anybody with half a brain who has observed and understood US history knows that.
Bill Dixon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And the sad thing is, you're proud of your "cowboy law".
-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Proud that I can stand our ground on my own property? I have never considered being proud of that really. It's always been a given.
I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the *right* to drive you from your home. What do you do, just slunk off and wait until the criminal leaves? Or do you call the police, who then come and remove the criminal by force? I'm guessing the latter. So it all still comes down to force in the end. You just lack the nerve to do the job yourself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Spender" > I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the *right* to

Where, exactly, did I write or say that?

No, nerve has nothing to do with it. I believe in the rule of the law, not the Wild West rule of the gun.
As for nerve, I'm a volunteer fire-fighter. You?
-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You clearly stated that if criminals come in, you leave. They're right to be safe to raid your home apparently outweighs your right to be secure in your property.

Rule of law? The right to defend yourself is one of the oldest tenets of common law. So that *is* the law.

I'll fight my own fires also, unless they get too big.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are attempting to twist me words. You have the right to defend your person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. Lethal force, to protect property, is going overboard.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That, clearly, is your opinion. But is not supported in fact of law in many countries and fortunately in more and more states of the United States.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We shall have to agree to disagree.
Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours. :-)
-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are attempting to twist my words. You have the right to defend your person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. Lethal force, to protect property, is going overboard.

Depends on where you live. Where I live, you have the right to use "reasonable force", even when it comes to defending your person. Using deadly force to stop someone stealing your TV is not "reasonable force". Even when defending yourself, you have the right to only use "reasonable force". Shooting someone who is about to beat you with their fists may be deemed by the courts, even with a trial, as "unreasonable force". The same goes if you beat your assailent to death. That is usually classed as "unreasonable force".
It depends on where you live. If you live in a gun happy culture, then you grow up with a gun happy view point. If you grow up in a culture where guns are either a hobby or used only for hunting, then you look at guns as a dangerous weapon. And please, don't trot out the NRA's red herring about personal protection. That red herring has been theor backbone for years. The vast majority of people, even in the U.S. of A., are killed by people they know, not by felons in the commision of a crime.

Right. Then you call on me. :-)
-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger T. wrote:

You should be able to defend yourself against any attack.

No, allowing criminals free rein is what is "going overboard".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Once again, I never said that.
You even quoted me but you still managed to twist or interpret what I wrote. :-)
-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:52:14 +1100, a_a_a wrote:

Hey - when and where did you do military service?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"unreasonable force"?????
There have been hundreds of people beaten to death by fists alone. And to use "deadly force" in defense against an attack that may cost you your life is "unreasonable force"
That is absolute horse pucky.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not in the countries I've lived in where people have gone to jail for use of "unreasonable force" as they have in many other western countries. Except yours, and of course.
Anyway, this discussion has run its course and is getting no where.
Take care.
-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And we're also proud that we decided to make our *own* mistakes, thank you -rather than have you make them *for* us- and threw you guys out of here 232 years ago. (Shortly to be followed by the *rest* of your overseas possessions.)
Not much has changed in the interum: you *still* think you should be entitled to decide who's civilized and who's not by the simple, arrogant, method of declaring yourselves to be civilized and anyone who disagrees with your judgements *un*civilized.
Didn't work 232 years ago, and won't work today, either.
~Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:41:32 -0600, Rick Jones

The number one reason against capital punishment, IMO, is the possibility of mistakes. There are more than 25 cases of capital punishment being used to kill the wrong guy in America during the 20th century. Oops. Since 1992 there have been 15 men exonerated by DNA evidence. Lucky for them that capital punishment is no longer swift. I have no problem, in theory, with someone who is guilty being put to death. But a mistake makes you a murderer.
It does make me shake my head to hear the talk of such punishment being cruel and unusual based on "constitutional" grounds. It obviously wasn't considered to be cruel and unusual by the men who wrote those words into the constitution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Spender wrote:

I do support DNA testing and other methods to exonerate people who have been wrongly incarcerated. There are many, many cases, however, in which there is little question of guilt and the death penalty is a fitting punishment. The two aforementioned criminals, as well as Gary Gilmore, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, Mark David Chapman, and a host of others would seem to be fair game to be put to death. (Gilmore, McVeigh and Bundy were executed, and I don't know of many people that shed a tear over them.)
--

Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.