Jump to content

JayC

Active Member
  • Posts

    3,125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by JayC

  1. Your costs are going up because you provider doesn't have any competition. I can buy bandwidth much cheaper from a data center today than I could just 3 or 4 years ago, 85% cheaper. But Comcast, AT&T, and Charter keep raising their rates even though their costs are going down. Also remember that Net Neutrality was passed by Republicans in 2007/2008 when the FCC labeled Internet Providers a Telecommunications Service under Title 2 of the Communications Act of 1934. And basically started to treat ISP's as 'common carriers' just like Telephone Companies have been regulated for the last 50+ years. Comcast and Verizon went to court, and got themselves exempted under Title 2, so the Obama FCC dropped the 'Net Neutrality' regulations to comply with the courts ruling. Basically, net neutrality has been in place since the Internet was created, except for a 2 or 3 year period when ISP's started to behave badly, and the FCC (both republicans and democrats) tried to enforce 'common carrier' status on them. And common carrier is a good thing, it basically says you must treat all 'traffic' equally no matter the destination.
  2. Most folks here know I'm about as libertarian, small government as anybody. But, net neutrality was a good thing, and was needed regulation. First thing most people don't realize is this regulation has been around for decades, since before AT&T was broken up. It was called 'common carrier' back then, and has worked out well for us over the last 50+ years. Telephone companies were basically required to connect all calls regardless of the destination. So if you were an MCI long distance customer you didn't need to worry about BellSouth dumping your call on the floor because you weren't paying their high long distance rates. Why do we need this regulation? Because we don't have a free market. In TN most citizens have a single or at most two broadband providers. These are government backed monopolies or duopolies. You can't enter the market place without government approval, and often times even if you get that approval the telephone and cable company fight tooth and nail to prevent you from having fair access to the public easements. Don't believe, go read the games Comcast and AT&T played with Google Fiber in Nashville. We have proof it's not a free market, when we look at bandwidth prices at data centers around the country... These prices have been falling for the last 10 years. Just 3 years ago the going rate was $1 USD per Mbps of bandwidth, today it's $0.15 USD per Mbps. Has your cable internet bill be going up or down? Of course up, and it's cheaper and cheaper for Comcast to provide you service today than just 3 years ago. The only reason they get away with these price hikes? Because you have no other choice. Also, we've caught last-mile ISP's doing bad things with traffic over the last 10 years. We've caught ISP's blocked VOIP providers to prevent customers from leaving their lucrative telephone service. We've caught Comcast blocking traffic and then lying to customers about it. We've also caught Comcast slowing down Netflix traffic and when you called to complain they recommended a streaming service they had an ownership stake in that wasn't intentionally slowed down. So, we have government backed monopolies, who was violating the 'common carrier' status quo of the last 50 years, there isn't a free market, and we've finally removed all limitations on them from building a walled garden that you can't escape from. And that is a good thing? Just remember, the 'evil' net neutrality was also preventing these last mile ISP's from blocking websites such as the NRA, TGO, and other right wing 'extremists' sites. Don't be surprised that the folks who are pressuring YouTube to take down conservative videos, don't start putting pressure on Comcast, Charter and AT&T to start blocking the 'terrorist' websites of the NRA etc.
  3. I was commenting on the need for the device to be in space instead of on a missile once it's in the atmosphere... Agreed, they can for sure reach space. Unlikely, the ISS is high enough to above the zone where EMP's are generated, possible but very very unlikely. Much easier to blow a nuke up in the path of the ISS and kill them from radiation when they pass through it.
  4. Yes, EMP threat requires the device to be detonated in space. While it's true there would be a EMP present in a traditional ballistic missile denotation, it's well within the 'kill' line of the device itself. Otherwise stated, if your watch dies from an such an EMP, you're dead anyway.
  5. Well, a polar orbit from North Korea could place the device coming over the United States from the Gulf of Mexico, where we have no missile defense coverage. Our missile defense coverage is designed to destroy missiles in 2 of 3 phases of flight, the boost phase when the missile is launching out of the atmosphere, and the terminal phase when it's either about to or entering the atmosphere. While we have shot down a satellite in orbit before, there are a couple of issues that pose an 'issue' for doing so in this case. We had very accurate orbital data on those satellites because first we owned them, and second they had been in space for weeks or months and were able to gather very accurate data ahead of time. Second, we haven't shot a satellite down at the height of the above example. So to recap: 1. Our current missile defense system designed to destroy incoming ballistic missiles has a very poor track record in real world tests, with a 50% hit rate. 2. It only covers missiles on a ballistic path from China and Russia. For example there is no coverage along the east coast or the gulf of mexico. 3. We've never demonstrated the ability to knock satellites down in this type of orbit, with as little information as we'd have, and at the altitude of such an attack. Could we have some type of un-demonstrated ability yes, but these systems are complicated and big, it would be VERY hard to hide testing in this domain from the public, or other major powers.
  6. How so to which part? The real threat is from HA-EMP devices placed into orbit, or that those devices are at an altitude that would make shooting them down much much harder, or that we should be cautious about starting a shooting war where 22-24 million people live within range of Norks massive artillery and mobile SCUD launchers?
  7. I'd didn't say it was a 'great achievement', only that they demonstrated the ability to place 2 satellites into polar orbits, which is harder technically than placing satellites in a more traditional geocentric orbit (requiring more delta-v). It also hints at their goals, a sun-synchronous orbit while good for spy satellites, is also good way to place a 'device' over the Central US in such a way as to render us defenseless to such an attack with our currently deployed anti-missile technology. Also remember this latest launch which could have easily placed a satellite into orbit, was launched from a mobile launcher which would make hunting them down much much harder. Norks are a major problem, and we should be cautious about taking military action that might result in 10,000's of deaths in SK, and could result in an EMP attack against the home land.
  8. That just isn't accurate, based on publicly known information on their weapons program. Here are some highlights: 1. They have put 2 satellites into stable polar orbits. They are higher than the space station. This is no small feet and only a handful of countries have the ability to do this. 2. While the distance laterally on their missiles isn't very far, it's the distance in height that is telling. If you throw a baseball straight up in the air and it reaches a height of 100 feet and lands 15 feet from you... Do you think you can throw the same baseball more than 15 feet at a 45 degree angle? 100 feet at the same 45 degree angle? Or much farther? 1&2 show the ability to lift a payload into orbit, and on a ballistic course that could easily impact CONUS. They're missing 2 more items needed to target us directly, 1. they need a reentry vehicle that can protect the payload, they haven't shown the ability to do this. 2. They need the ability to make mid course and reentry course corrections, to properly target city sized targets. BUT, the real threat is from a simple High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse, they have demonstrated all the need technology to pull off this type of attack, there is little that we could do to stop the attack, accurate targeting isn't needed, and the results would be devastating to the American people. One device detonated over Lincoln, Neb could disable all 3 power grids within the United States, for days, and would leave a large area of the country without power for months. It would kill far more people than a single missile hitting a major US city, which is pretty hard to do accurately.
  9. I love my 5.11 soft shell, and if you hunt around you can often find them on sale for under $80.
  10. Which stat do you want a source for? As I said, mass shootings are a rounding error in the total number of firearm deaths each year, trying to legislate away 100-200 deaths per year in a country of 330 million people is not a going to work. Most of the murders are driven by drugs, either turf related, or trying to steal to afford the drugs themselves. Coffee costs less than $50 per kilo for good high quality coffee, yet in TN cocaine costs ~$32,000 per kilo. If we made coffee that expensive overnight, we'd have more petty crime trying to get their coffee fix Oh yeah and it makes the world less stable, and causes our rights to be eroded here at home. Ask any police officer or former police officer here, how much of the crime they see day to day is driven by drugs either directly or indirectly, it's a huge problem. I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, and every time they call asking for a donation, I hang up and give to the GOA. I come to gun forums and complain because the only way to change the NRA is for NRA members to see the problem and demand the organization change.
  11. Can't fix a mental illness But, we need to be rational and point out just how much of a waste the background check system is, and why it should be ended.
  12. The background check system costs ~500 million per year, adding about $100 per firearm on average. In 2009, one of the last years we have stats for, ~6 million background checks were performed. The FBI denied a little over 72,000 of those background checks, and referred most of them to the ATF, where the vast majority of them are deemed to be false positives. In the end the ATF found 62 cases that they thought were criminal violations, and the vast majority of those weren't good enough for the DOJ to prosecute. So we have a system that costs lots of money, where 98.8% of purchases go through with no problem, of the remain purchases only 4700 are investigated the rest are false positives. And then when those 4,700 are looked at only 62 meet the criminal statues to be prosecuted under federal law. 62 out of 6+ million background checks! 99.99+% of purchases aren't criminal, yet we have to waste 500 million a year on the background check system, and all of the expense complying with it. What other right protected in the Bill of Rights can the government take away from us? Require us to ask for permission every time we want to make a purchase? None! And yes, I see no reason to keep the NFA at all, rifles aren't be used to commit crimes, if we repealed the NFA tomorrow, machine guns wouldn't be used to commit crimes in any great number. There were ~11,000 people killed by firearms in 2010, the vast majority with a pistol. Less than 2% (way less) were killed in a mass shooting... ~12% killed by police officers (somewhere between 1100 and 1500 per year)... These are all sad numbers but are footnotes to the real problem.... The failed war on drugs, the VAST majority of gun violence in this country is drug related, make drugs legal, and allow the market to set their price, and the rate of crime including gun violence would drop drastically. But with all of that said, crime is down to 1950's levels even without getting rid of the war on drugs... even with all these crazy mass shootings. Almost half of what it was in 1992... Starting in 1992 shall issue gun permits started to become the law of the land, and access to carry firearms by law abiding citizens increased, crime has decreased. Most mass shootings take place in gun free zones, and the vast majority of mass shootings are stopped by a 'good guy' with a gun. We should be making it easier for 'good guys' those law abiding citizens to have access at all times to firearms, not figure out more ways to waste tax payer money on programs that don't stop crime, only make us 'feel good' that we're doing something to stop it.
  13. The NRA should take a zero tolerance policy of new gun laws, and should be working to repeal as many of these silly laws as possible... instead they're providing cover for Republicans to vote to waste more money on gun laws that only impact law abiding citizens. And remember how we got the Hughes Amendment? A late night voice vote adding the machine gun ban to the FOPA of 1986, which the NRA allowed to go through.
  14. The background check system is a complete waste of money and time. The people causing these mass shootings are going to: 1. Pass the background check anyhow. 2. Commit another serious crime to gain access to firearms. All the background check system does is waste the time and money of otherwise law abiding citizens... It's not fixable, so why throw good money after bad on a 'feel' good system?
  15. Yes because we need to pass a law to reduce the 0.0066% of firearms stolen each year. It's a rounding error, just like the national background check system is a rounding error, which has a 80-90+% false positive rate. These laws don't protect people, or do anything to reduce crime.... Stop the failed war on drugs would be the best way to reduce crime, and would save us a lot of money as well.
  16. No offense but most of the people on this forum don't even understand TN gun laws (yes they're crappy and make no sense what so ever), how do you expect anybody to understand all the combinations of federal and state gun laws that exist out there? We have a republican legislature that can't even pass a pro-gun law that doesn't make the gun laws even more stupid and hard to understand. I use to be able to carry into the small town city hall where I went to high school, I can't now because in the basement is the police office. How many city halls in TN have been shot up by permit holders? None, yet we have to make the law even harder for a otherwise law abiding citizen to follow. Somebody please explain to me, how when we had a democratic legislature we got more and better gun laws passed than we do under a republican one?
  17. It's a long shot, but we need to push the legislature to allow permit holders to carry long rifles. It doesn't make sense in today's day and age that we can carry AR pistols, but can't carry a rifle in public. We can carry them on our property, houses, and in our cars without a permit, but a permit holder can't carry one for protection. Church's are a soft target, we should expect to see more attacks on them over the coming years, and while I'm a decent shot with a Glock 19, but I don't want to get into a gun fight with a body armor wearing bad guys with a rifle, with just a 9mm. Until then, to stay within the legal limits of TN firearms law, AR pistols with a 10 inch barrel are the way to go IMHO.
  18. While true, the chances are 8 times more likely that you'll be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. https://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist The fact is police officers are violating TN law daily without having a specific reasonable belief that a permit holder needs to be disarmed for their protection. And they get away with it because nobody will hold them accountable. You and I are expected to follow the law to the letter, and if we violate the law would likely face criminal sanctions. Shouldn't police officer be held to a higher standard of conduct than the citizens they are sworn to protect?
  19. If he has a pistol certification from the military he can just go down to TDOS and apply for the permit with a copy of that documentation. He doesn't have to attend the class.
  20. Wireless Plus 1136 Myatt Blvd, Madison, TN 37115 (615) 333-0108 They did the radio (Icom 7000) install for me and did a very good job. You're going to need to bring with you EVERYTHING they need antenna mount wise. @TGO David
  21. I'll point out we've basically lost a war to illiterate goat herders with nothing more than AK's, mortars, and arty shells to use as IED's. Mind you, they don't speak our language, there aren't millions of them who understand our tactics and weapon systems as well as current active duty service personnel, and they don't have access to the homeland where the basic supply chain is completely unprotected and families live in near complete safety. All those fancy weapon systems require 100's of man hours of maintenance, replacement parts, and a bunch of civilian contractors to keep them running. If you're scared of fighting the military on our soil, trust me the military is 100x more scared of fighting an insurgency here.
  22. If you're an NRA member you need to call and complain that they are caving on the 2nd Amendment and their stance must change. You will refuse to donate anymore money to the NRA until they reverse their stance. Then turn around and donate $20 to the GOA who doesn't compromise on gun rights no matter what. And yes I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, and this is exactly what I did this morning.
  23. Sorry for being late to the party, but that just isn't true. In order to legally disarm a permit holder the officer must have a REASONABLE belief they need to for their safety or the safety of others. Since the belief must be reasonable, it must also be specific to that permit holder. So departments with policies to disarm all HCP's are illegal on their face. Individual officers who disarm permit holders every time are also acting unlawfully. The problem? No DA is going to do anything about it. So officers are allowed to blatantly violate the law with no way to prevent them from doing so.
  24. orse than that, I doubt under oath the officer could articulate a reason fear to disarm her in the first place. He needs to be facing a civil rights lawsuit for the unlawful search, and everything else that spawned from his unlawful actions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.