Evan Thomas
Inactive
tiberius10721 said:
Tiberius, I'm a bit confused. Are you able to clarify how any of this relates to the column quoted in the OP, which is about anger over the economic crisis, and possible violent civil unrest?
So now its “widespread civil violence”
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
Tiberius, I'm a bit confused. Are you able to clarify how any of this relates to the column quoted in the OP, which is about anger over the economic crisis, and possible violent civil unrest?
This posting is a clear violation of the copyrights of the publisher, Reuters, who is a commercial enterprise. (Actually makes no difference, only the government is prohibiting from copyrighting) Re-publishing an entire article, attribution or not, does not constitute fair use. A couple of quotes comprising a sentence or two is fair use.
I would suggest that the web masters remove the text of the article and leave the link to avoid problems.
BTW, I am one of those lower-than-scum journalists who earns, or tries to earn, my living writing, just so you know.
Fine. Go read this and I'll edit the thread header into something indistinguishable from what it started out to be.
http://www.publaw.com/fairuse.html
The posting meets Fair Use guidelines as they exist; but as the article clearly points out the courts have never issued a dead-bang-cut-n-dried ruling on just exactly what constitutes consistent Fair Use doctrine.
Like Antipitas said, this thread will go off the cliff; and the edge is now at our feet.
Jim Peel
While there is no set standard for how much of an article can be quoted without the copyright holder's permission, there is no way that posting ALL of it can be considered fair use. Here is what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say. You can't consider this forum as "educational," when it a commercial venture of S.W.A.T. Magazine, not a school.
The point is, why not just post the link and avoid the problem altogether? That would not diminish the discussion one iota, and it would be respectful of the copyright owner's rights.
While there is no set standard for how much of an article can be quoted without the copyright holder's permission, there is no way that posting ALL of it can be considered fair use. Here is what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say. You can't consider this forum as "educational," when it a commercial venture of S.W.A.T. Magazine, not a school.
The point is, why not just post the link and avoid the problem altogether? That would not diminish the discussion one iota, and it would be respectful of the copyright owner's rights.
Anyway, back on topic, those who state that this is just some hack commentator need to remember that it was just this type of commentator that gave us the president we now have --- and his agendas and policies.
A willing press was in the tank for Obama from day one and they are still in the tank for his policies -- including firearms controls. They will not back off because someone calls them some kinda hack.
To disregard this article is to give it legitimization; because the anti firearms agendists are reading it also and they are taking it far more literally. How many other articles are going to be deemed "not worth considering" because they are written by the wrong people or those deemed not worthy of note? How many on the other side are considering such articles "worthy" and stand ready to act upon same?
The article tries to connect firearms and public dissension over current economic conditions; and it suggests that it is incredible that the people have not yet taken to the streets as they do in other countries when there is economic strife.
Basically, this article is the flip side -- the liberal mythology side -- of the patriot mythology coin. The patriot mythology side says "The government is coming!"; and the liberal mythology side says "The people are coming!"
One says we need more firearms; and the other says we need less firearms.
All depends where you are standing when the coin lands.
A willing press was in the tank for Obama from day one and they are still in the tank for his policies -- including firearms controls. They will not back off because someone calls them some kinda hack.
To disregard this article is to give it legitimization; because the anti firearms agendists are reading it also and they are taking it far more literally. How many other articles are going to be deemed "not worth considering" because they are written by the wrong people or those deemed not worthy of note? How many on the other side are considering such articles "worthy" and stand ready to act upon same?
The article tries to connect firearms and public dissension over current economic conditions; and it suggests that it is incredible that the people have not yet taken to the streets as they do in other countries when there is economic strife.
Basically, this article is the flip side -- the liberal mythology side -- of the patriot mythology coin. The patriot mythology side says "The government is coming!"; and the liberal mythology side says "The people are coming!"
One says we need more firearms; and the other says we need less firearms.
All depends where you are standing when the coin lands.
Well, when articles like that are used to sway opinion, and comments from the administration are factored in(since we are reading between the lines)...mandatory civilian service, federal emergency forces. Public opinion is being swaying as thoughts of a million mexis streaming across the border permeate the news. Language has been changed and there will be calls to help us avert man caused disasers as a part of your civic duty. In other words....inform on your neighbor, restore the ways of the Stasi. Like any jigsaw puzzle, the gun control conundrum is being assembled from the easy straight edges, as we work towards the center. Anti gunners have gotten smarter. Ammo as controlled substance, privacy losses, the environmental aspects of lead, required liability insurances to protect society, medical records tied to ownership/purchases thru a single pay system, registrations, curtailing arms into mexico...etc ad nauseum...will all work to cement last piece of this puzzle. Thank god for frequent elections...
The intentions, are well documented, even tho they appear silent when queeried. But it is a new progressive thinking, comrade...fear is the new logic...and we are only looking out for your safety.
The intentions, are well documented, even tho they appear silent when queeried. But it is a new progressive thinking, comrade...fear is the new logic...and we are only looking out for your safety.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Sorry to hijack, gretske - but I forgive you being one of those low than scum college professors who plan to subvert the mind of American Youth for the great conspiracy.
MeekAndMild
New member
Apologies all. By way of justification for the L&CR appropriateness of the inadvertent thread veer I started with my initial remark, the topics of free speech and protection of copyrighted property are both civil rights issues. 
Back on topic, I think that the writer made too many generalizations to characterize present day buyers in a manner which demeaned their individual intelligence and their motivations.
Any commodity will increase in value with scarcity (semi automatic weapons during an AWB) but they will also increase in cost during a time of sudden inflation (durable goods when the money supply is suddenly doubled or tripled) and will increase in net cost when the government increases tax rates. So Wildalaska's personal observations are valid on the basis of human nature without casting aspersions on his customers calling them unlicensed gun dealers. Maybe they are just sportsmen who predict a sudden increase of the cost of their hobby.
My 2 cents, or in Obamanomic-Zimbwabe-speak, my 2 billion bucks worth.
Back on topic, I think that the writer made too many generalizations to characterize present day buyers in a manner which demeaned their individual intelligence and their motivations.
Any commodity will increase in value with scarcity (semi automatic weapons during an AWB) but they will also increase in cost during a time of sudden inflation (durable goods when the money supply is suddenly doubled or tripled) and will increase in net cost when the government increases tax rates. So Wildalaska's personal observations are valid on the basis of human nature without casting aspersions on his customers calling them unlicensed gun dealers. Maybe they are just sportsmen who predict a sudden increase of the cost of their hobby.
My 2 cents, or in Obamanomic-Zimbwabe-speak, my 2 billion bucks worth.
Same old crap as in previous decades. Since 1998 there has been almost 100 million NICS checks. And there were alot of privately owned firearms before 1998.
Maybe the chicken little "sky is falling" garbage spewed out by these types of anti's would have ALREADY occurred if it was EVER going to occur. Duh!!
Maybe the chicken little "sky is falling" garbage spewed out by these types of anti's would have ALREADY occurred if it was EVER going to occur. Duh!!
Wildalaska
Moderator
Sort of like the chicken little "sky is falling" garbage spewed out by the progunners would have ALREADY occurred if it was EVER going to occur. Duh!!
Guns aint been seized yet
WildhyperboleisnotanexclusiveconceptAlaska TM
Now watch someone try and convince me that "our" hyperbole is more valid than "their" hyperbole
Wildalaska
Moderator
Now watch someone try and convince me that "our" hyperbole is more valid than "their" hyperbole
WildnostradamusAlaska TM
WildnostradamusAlaska TM