tkhayes

k2skydiver already demonstrated that apparently it can and has been done regularly. And besides that, I did not start the thread with the intent of students shooting 'better video' than you....I simply am discussing them shooting video. I could honestly give a shit about what the quality of the video is. If the customer wants to and I can make a buck off of it, then who am I to care? really. Back to my original post(s)....what excuses will we have when the camera is so small that it is the size of a quarter mounted on a glove, flush with the glove? At that point, denying the customer a possible service would be just being a dick. http://www.ccfamilydefense.com/World-s-Smallest-HD-Spy-Camera-DVR-with-color-p/dvrg200.htm

get a load of these guys.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky49ltgeXRU both sides are extreme....what the vast majority of what America wants is some better laws somewhere in the middle of those extremes. Especially on background checks. but what we get is absolutely zero movement in any direction, and what we thus can expect is a continuation of innocent people being killed by guns en masse.

that was such a bad movie..... I want my money back

how does a legal gun go from being 'legal' to being 'illegal'. If we stem the flow of legal guns, it will eventually stem the flow of illegal guns. there is not division of Remingtion, Ruger or Smith and Wesson that I am aware of that is constantly feeding the illegal gun market.

common street crime is also a problem well defined by the easy access to guns both legally and illegally. stop pretending that common street crime with guns is not a problem. it is. and it is a gun problem as well. common street criminals did not have such easy access 50 years ago, they used knives and baseball bats and the numbers of deaths were far lower than they are today.

Or get your elected representatives to change the laws. That is actually how the system works. your precious Constitution has been amended 27 times, so it is far from perfect and there are even changes to it that you would advocate for I bet. Tell you what - if you do not like free speech, and/or elected representative govt for and by the people then YOU move out. At least I earned my citizenship - you took the easy route and were just born here.

sure because the gun(s) had nothing to do with it...I mean if he did not have access to guns, he would have used a spoon. or maybe a rake....an iPhone or a piece of a tree, someone easily as accessible....

stop being so 'american ignorant' please what laws do we have in place that stop restaurant workers from pissing in the soup? zero however, with a pretty good set of restaurant cleanliness laws and regular inspections, reasonable regulations etc, there is not really a problem with restaurant workers pissing in the soup. no, we did not eliminate it. what laws are in place that stop drivers from speeding past school buses and killing children? none that absolutely stop it, but with hefty fines, some regulation, monitoring and cultural changes, as well as signage on the school buses, lights and other safety devices, drivers mowing down school children on school buses has been reduced to nearly zero. No we did not eliminate it. your are so truly 'american ignorant' to think that nothing can be done. So then can I assume that unless someone comes up with the absolutely perfect solution to gun violence, guaranteeing you 100% success, that you are unwilling to move even one inch towards a solution? Do you have a problem with the CDC and the FBI being able to track data on gun violence? Are you willing to write Congress to ask for such legislation? Do you have a problem with a more complete background check system targeting the mentally ill and criminals for all gun sales? Are you willing to write Congress to ask for such legislation? Do you have a problem with requiring all gun losses and thefts to be reported to the police and or FBI so those guns can be tracked if they ever end up involved in a crime? Are you willing to write Congress to ask for such legislation? Are you willing to move even ONE INCH on the issue? Are you willing to write Congress to ask for ANY legislation? No, I thought not.

absolutely and patently false and wrong. Canada is one example where you can still buy guns, your 'freedom' is not infringed.....you can own handguns, you can get guns, you can shoot, and there are more and more guns in Canada than ever before. And the gun violence rate is a fraction of what it is here. which actually removes most of the need to carry a gun for self defense. to sit here and say that there are no solutions or that no one has presented any solutions yet is simply obtuse and shows a demonstrative level of blindness and ignorance unique only to America So little view of what the rest of the world has accomplished successfully. unbelievably american

you mean like the wear and tear on your brake linings every time to have to stop your car at a light? Missed your thread and letters to Congress screaming those outrages apparently.

who said we were only trying to address mass killings? Apparently you missed the other 10,000 or so killed every year by gun violence and 10,000-20,000 more suicides by guns. once again, the gun lobby attempts to twist and change the subject to distract from the real issues and then pretend that nothing can be done about it. let's talk about mass shootings - no wait, i meant mental illness...not that, no - background checks....oh wait, I meant to say an armed society is a polite society, no wait, are we just talking about kids that shoot their siblings by mistake.....oh wait, black people are in gangs and they don't count anyway. no....there is no problem......

at what point does it become 'emotional' enough to do something? By your standards I mean. I mean we invaded Iraq over 9/11 and they had nothing to do with it. Was 9/11 emotional or not? were you emotional over 9/11? Do you disagree with any of the actions we took because of 9/11 due to people being 'emotional about it? Did you desire and expect the USA to address 9/11 on those emotions? more people died from gun violence this year than died in 9/11. now tell me that emotions do not matter again....go ahead. explain that to me how Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Iwo Jima, were not 'emotional' and I guess we never should have acted on them because they were too 'emotional' to be acted upon. Go ahead and explain to me how Hurricane Katrina was 'emotional' and we never should have acted on it. Go ahead and explain to me how any major California earthquake was too 'emotional' and how we never should have acted on them because of that. Go ahead and explain to me how we never should have acted on Polio....because so many people were so fucking 'emotional' that OBVIOUSLY a rational solution could never be found....I mean all those 'emotional people' demanding that someone help the situation - how dare they.... I cannot wait to hear that. go ahead. I can hardly wait

name one thing that we could do with 1/16 of the effort to save as many lives as die in gun violence every year. your claim, not mine. back it up. talk about emotional responses....wow

sure I do - but there are people far smarter than you and me that have even better solutions. and by the way there is no 'solution'. by that I mean nothing that will suddenly stop any and all shootings, which seems to be the prerequisite for any movement form the gun lobby, there are 1000 things we could to do improve the situation and most of them easy. we could collect data and allow the CDC to collect data, the FBI to collect data, but we block it. we could require background checks for all gun purchases, a background check that actually means something, but we do not. we could require training, we could offer a buyback program for unwanted guns, but we block that as well and pass legislation to not even allow it in some states but before you start picking apart my suggestions, keep in mind that I am not congress, I am not the senate, I am not the arbitrator of what the solutions are. there are people out there and there are policies out that are already demonstratively far better than what we have today that are not being implemented and are being blocked from being implemented. so summary - no I am not going to suggest a change for you to dismiss. what I am going to say is that we can do better, and you already know that, but i expect you will simply deny that we can or come up with some other half-assed flimsy excuse as to why it cannot be done. If that is the kind of person you are - "We can do nothing" then i guess that is the way that it is. i am the kind of person that says "Sure we can and let's try something'" because whatever we are doing today sure the fuck is not working. You either think you can or you think you can't. either way you are right.

[urlhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/01/watch-president-obamas-statement-shooting-oregon?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email511-graphic1&utm_campaign=irandeal[/url] let's do nothing about it then. what the fuck, I mean millions of dollars, people's lives destroyed, all falling on society to fund in so many ways....but it is Ok. we can do nothing, I mean we put a man on the fucking moon and have cured countless diseases, but no, there is nothing that can be done EVER to help improve the gun violence in the country. nothing. way to go america. you rock

I must have missed your thread advocating for the defunding of Congress because its politicians are lying sometimes.....

go america....

The CEO never claimed that PP does mammograms. In fact PP corrected the President when he said it. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/19/planned-parenthood-admits-it-does-not-do-mammograms-for-women/ and that was 3 years ago, so pretty old news, even for you to churn up. Referring women for a mammogram after performing a breast exam, is in fact a valuable service, just like my doctor refers me for a cancer screening when he finds a lump in my armpit. If my doctor then says he does 'cancer exams', he is not lying. And if this is all you have, along with all the other rhetoric that you have spouted throughout this thread, then it is no wonder that the Republican Party will most likely be annihilated by women in the next election.

I didn't see anything in the SC decision that forbade a videographer from not videoing their weddings. no it may not be 'specific enough', but it will be soon enough if needed. We gave blacks the right to vote and then continued to discriminate specifically based on the color of their skin until laws were based addressing those issues. Voting Rights act and such. Eventually it will be specifically addressed. We already cannot discriminate based on sex, religion, color, race, etc etc, etc, all issues that were in the Constitution or came out of SCOTUS decisions. It is pretty naive to assume that you can continue to discriminate against something that the Supreme Court, overseeing the Supreme law of the land, has ruled on. If you do that, you are just being a dick. The Constitution nor the Supreme Court has ruled on whether or not you can take a piss in the morning either. But for me to take action in the form of discrimination against you for taking a piss in the morning would indeed make me a 'dick' as well. If I tried to block your voting rights based on my religious beliefs, you would tell me to fuck off. White Supremacists still want to discriminate against blacks. they also back up their argument using religion and specifically the Bible in a lot of cases. When they do that, everyone tells them to fuck off. the USA needs to get over this one. completely. Get over it.

the law has been changed. It was changed SPECIFICALLY in favor of gay marriage, therefore you cannot discriminate anymore based on that. However religion and their rights are GENERALLY defined in the Constitution and no SPECIFIC religious belief is defined nor supported by the SCOTUS or by the Constitution. Therefore the constitution trumps your specific religious belief. If you cannot tolerate a country where the laws trump religion, hen try Iran or Afghanistan....might be more to your liking.

I didn't read anything about regulations in the whole foods article that you posted. What I saw was you posting something to indicate that the economy is going the wrong way. And that's why me and SD both commented that this is simply capitalism at work. Assuming there were zero regulations regarding grocery stores I expect that news article would have read exactly the same way, Whole Foods is cutting headcount in order to compete with stiff competition

yes, ditto to Skydekker

Those issues have no been addressed in the Constitution or by the SCOTUS, whereas gay marriage has been.

well, that was not my experience with them. Just bought 2 new Yaesu FTA-230's, I will let you know if a few months.

Actually I would object, but that is because it is my business and I am not in the business of running or even hosting church services. But for the right cause, I might. We host a lot of different things. I am in the skydiving business. And the 'cake baker' is in the business making cakes. Also, they not in the business of running church services, just like me. No one is asking the cake baker to watch or engage people having gay sex, or even attend their gay marriage. The cake baker is denying their primary product and/or service based on a discrimination. A discrimination of something now ruled on by the Supreme Court as lawful. But we are not actually talking about church services or baking cakes. We are talking about religion and discrimination. And that is laid out in the Constitution. I can choose or not choose religion. And now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of gay marriage that is also now 'in the constitution'. Whether you like it or not. Just like discriminating against people because of the color of their skin is also in the Constitution now that the laws have passed and been upheld by the SCOTUS. I would not object to Christian Sunday AM church service at YOUR business if you wanted one. But others might. I would not object to individual prayer at my business, it happens everyday I expect. And the Constitution protects that right for sure. However, if I deny customers based on their sexual orientation, then I am discriminating based on a lawful thing/act/culture/whatever as defined by the Supreme Court and therefore I am in defiance of the Constitution of the USA. You really should read up on this stuff. I mean, I had to in order to become a citizen. But yes, I actually had to earn that, whereas you were simply born here. the easy way I guess.