Kilkrazy wrote:
It would seem that you view the two different actions as equivalent to each other.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I am having trouble finding the part saying flag type patterns and prints on clothing is wrong.

That is because the flag code concerns the flag, not graphic elements such as stars or red and white stripes that can be used to print a flag type of pattern. The flag is a specific set of colours and patterns in a specific configuration.

Therefore if you make a replica of the US flag and take one star off, it isn't the US flag any more and isn't covered by the flag code.

The words 'flag, standard, colors, or ensign', as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure someone who was screaming for Clinton's blood will soon belong to tell us how the FBI should just take his word for it or some such

 Ouze wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure someone who was screaming for Clinton's blood will soon belong to tell us how the FBI should just take his word for it or some such

They're probably in line right behind the state's rights and small government advocates who are outraged that the federal government will again start enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Truly, America is on the road to being Great Again

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure someone who was screaming for Clinton's blood will soon belong to tell us how the FBI should just take his word for it or some such

They're probably in line right behind the state's rights and small government advocates who are outraged that the federal government will again start enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Truly, America is on the road to being Great Again

Is there not an actual honest to god law against Marijuana?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apart from machine-guns, I don't really see any difference between a "civilian" gun and a military gun as a weapon of war.

Most pistols and rifles have very similar military and "civilian" versions. I assume that the civilian version of a rifle doesn't have a bayonet lug and can't fire in full auto.

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, I have some thoughts about the 4th court of Appeals and their views on the 2nd Ammendment.

They say the 2nd Amendment does not protect "weapons of war" and only protects civilian weapons. Doesn't that totally conflict with previous Supreme Court rulings? Perviously the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to weapons that COULD be used for war, which is why laws forbidding short barrelled shotguns were upheld.

So, which is it? Does the 2nd Amenedment protect weapons of war, or only non-weapons of war?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure someone who was screaming for Clinton's blood will soon belong to tell us how the FBI should just take his word for it or some such

They're probably in line right behind the state's rights and small government advocates who are outraged that the federal government will again start enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Truly, America is on the road to being Great Again

Is there not an actual honest to god law against Marijuana?

Couldn't have proved that point any better.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure someone who was screaming for Clinton's blood will soon belong to tell us how the FBI should just take his word for it or some such

They're probably in line right behind the state's rights and small government advocates who are outraged that the federal government will again start enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Truly, America is on the road to being Great Again

Is there not an actual honest to god law against Marijuana?

Couldn't have proved that point any better.

 sebster wrote:
Violent nonsense is also a more natural fit with the left, right wing ideas 'respect for authority' and 'the importance of law' doesn't really gel with breaking the window of a McDonalds.

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/23/sweden-democrats-trump-was-right.html

This been covered at all?

 jasper76 wrote:
It's OK when my team does it, because we're always correct.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apart from machine-guns, I don't really see any difference between a "civilian" gun and a military gun as a weapon of war.

Most pistols and rifles have very similar military and "civilian" versions. I assume that the civilian version of a rifle doesn't have a bayonet lug and can't fire in full auto.

Which is kind of the point really, isn't it? People getting scared over the look of a weapon rather than its functionality. Depending on where you are bayonet lugs can be legal on civilian rifles. I have one on one of my guns. I only bought the bayonet for gaks and giggles though. Honestly, I've never really understood the urge to ban bayonet lugs. It's not like there are drive-by bayonettings. I think there have only been a couple killings with a mounted bayonet within the last 100 years so it's not exactly a major public health issue.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Violent nonsense is also a more natural fit with the left, right wing ideas 'respect for authority' and 'the importance of law' doesn't really gel with breaking the window of a McDonalds.

Violent nonsense against property. I'm sure violent nonsense against people gets a pass sometime.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Violent nonsense is also a more natural fit with the left, right wing ideas 'respect for authority' and 'the importance of law' doesn't really gel with breaking the window of a McDonalds.

Violent nonsense against property. I'm sure violent nonsense against people gets a pass sometime.

Oh, left aligned violence hasn't exactly been limited to property now, has it?

A 51-year-old man faces first-degree murder charges after shooting three men in an Olathe, Kan., bar Wednesday night, police say, reportedly telling two of them, local Garmin engineers from India, to “get out of my country.”

cuda1179 wrote:So, I have some thoughts about the 4th court of Appeals and their views on the 2nd Ammendment.

They say the 2nd Amendment does not protect "weapons of war" and only protects civilian weapons. Doesn't that totally conflict with previous Supreme Court rulings? Perviously the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to weapons that COULD be used for war, which is why laws forbidding short barrelled shotguns were upheld.

So, which is it? Does the 2nd Amenedment protect weapons of war, or only non-weapons of war?

Kilkrazy wrote:Apart from machine-guns, I don't really see any difference between a "civilian" gun and a military gun as a weapon of war.

Most pistols and rifles have very similar military and "civilian" versions. I assume that the civilian version of a rifle doesn't have a bayonet lug and can't fire in full auto.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Yeah, I'm not suggesting what Milo did wasn't a gak thing to do, I'm just saying that nobody got outed, as I've seen claimed over and over, and accepted without question. This individual had already outed themselves, and was giving TV interviews advocating that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, rather than of their biological gender, which is a fairly controversial and unsettled issue.

And its disingenuous to say people on the left don't pull this kind of stuff as well. Forget big names like Trump and Bannon...shows like the Daily Show, Samantha Bee, etc routinely take a minor public figure, or just some random schmoe in a crowd, give them a disingenuous and often humiliating interview, edit the interview for maximum laughs,

As John Stewart once said, "I'm on Comedy Central...the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls".

Milo was a senior editor at an outfit ostensibly representing itself as a factual news outlet.

With the Daily Show, anyone *consenting* to an interview with the Daily Show would be familiar with the show and how they operate and what they do, they know the score and are choosing to interact directly with the show. Very different situations from those targeted by Milo.

 whembly wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure someone who was screaming for Clinton's blood will soon belong to tell us how the FBI should just take his word for it or some such

They're probably in line right behind the state's rights and small government advocates who are outraged that the federal government will again start enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Truly, America is on the road to being Great Again

Is there not an actual honest to god law against Marijuana?

Couldn't have proved that point any better.

Again... are you telling me that marijuana is not codified as DEA level 1?

Or, are you saying that the DoJ should selectively choose NOT to enforce certain laws?

 whembly wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, I have some thoughts about the 4th court of Appeals and their views on the 2nd Ammendment.

They say the 2nd Amendment does not protect "weapons of war" and only protects civilian weapons. Doesn't that totally conflict with previous Supreme Court rulings? Perviously the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to weapons that COULD be used for war, which is why laws forbidding short barrelled shotguns were upheld.

So, which is it? Does the 2nd Amenedment protect weapons of war, or only non-weapons of war?

....erm... what's the difference between "weapons of war" and "non-weapons of war"??

 d-usa wrote:
That's the same basis some states have used for passing laws circumventing firearms restrictions, isn't it?

Weapons build in State X and sold in State X not being covered by federal laws since they don't cross state lines?

The law declares that firearms manufactured in the state of Montana after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these items are clearly stamped "Made in Montana" on a central metallic part.

It applies to all firearms other than fully automatic weapons, firearms that cannot be carried and used by one person, and firearms with a bore diameter greater than 1½ inch which use smokeless powder. It also applies to ammunition (except exploding projectiles), and accessories such as suppressors.[2]

The law has no requirements for registration, background checks or dealer licensing. As a result, the law was intended to create a large loop-hole in the federal regulatory structure.

The legislature declared that the authority for this law is derived from the Second, Ninth and Tenth amendments from the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. This act reaffirmed the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It guarantees to the people rights not mentioned in the constitution, as well as to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution. The law also stated that Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution prohibits government interference with the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms.

Some supporters asserted that the legislation was also about curbing excessive Federal regulation in areas such as education, animal management and intrastate trade.[4]

The drafters of the law intended that it would form a legal challenge to the federal regulation of firearms by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.[4]

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apart from machine-guns, I don't really see any difference between a "civilian" gun and a military gun as a weapon of war.

Most pistols and rifles have very similar military and "civilian" versions. I assume that the civilian version of a rifle doesn't have a bayonet lug and can't fire in full auto.

Which is kind of the point really, isn't it? People getting scared over the look of a weapon rather than its functionality. Depending on where you are bayonet lugs can be legal on civilian rifles. I have one on one of my guns. I only bought the bayonet for gaks and giggles though. Honestly, I've never really understood the urge to ban bayonet lugs. It's not like there are drive-by bayonettings. I think there have only been a couple killings with a mounted bayonet within the last 100 years so it's not exactly a major public health issue.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, I have some thoughts about the 4th court of Appeals and their views on the 2nd Ammendment.

They say the 2nd Amendment does not protect "weapons of war" and only protects civilian weapons. Doesn't that totally conflict with previous Supreme Court rulings? Perviously the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to weapons that COULD be used for war, which is why laws forbidding short barrelled shotguns were upheld.

So, which is it? Does the 2nd Amenedment protect weapons of war, or only non-weapons of war?

....erm... what's the difference between "weapons of war" and "non-weapons of war"??

I'd think it would mean things like field guns, motors, automatic weapons, explosives, gak like that (which is already all highly regulated, for good reason), but it does seem rather vague. I mean some of the most popular guns out there are basically semi-auto versions of military weapons, and what about WWI/II rifles?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Still, having read somewhere that most casualties in war are inflicted by artillery, as long as the US government has a monopoly on the big guns, it shouldn't really worry about its civilians owing the odd machine gun here and there.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Still, having read somewhere that most casualties in war are inflicted by artillery, as long as the US government has a monopoly on the big guns, it shouldn't really worry about its civilians owing the odd machine gun here and there.

Well, until someone gets in a clock tower with an MG-42 and a suitcase of ammunition belts and spare barrels.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Still, having read somewhere that most casualties in war are inflicted by artillery, as long as the US government has a monopoly on the big guns, it shouldn't really worry about its civilians owing the odd machine gun here and there.

Well, until someone gets in a clock tower with an MG-42 and a suitcase of ammunition belts and spare barrels.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Yeah, I'm not suggesting what Milo did wasn't a gak thing to do, I'm just saying that nobody got outed, as I've seen claimed over and over, and accepted without question. This individual had already outed themselves, and was giving TV interviews advocating that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, rather than of their biological gender, which is a fairly controversial and unsettled issue.

And its disingenuous to say people on the left don't pull this kind of stuff as well. Forget big names like Trump and Bannon...shows like the Daily Show, Samantha Bee, etc routinely take a minor public figure, or just some random schmoe in a crowd, give them a disingenuous and often humiliating interview, edit the interview for maximum laughs,

As John Stewart once said, "I'm on Comedy Central...the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls".

Milo was a senior editor at an outfit ostensibly representing itself as a factual news outlet.

With the Daily Show, anyone *consenting* to an interview with the Daily Show would be familiar with the show and how they operate and what they do, they know the score and are choosing to interact directly with the show. Very different situations from those targeted by Milo.

Asking somebody to consent to be an interviewee and then editing their responses to change what that person said is a gakky thing to do. It's wrong when Katie Couric does it for her antigun movie, it's wrong when the OKeefe guy does it for his gotcha videos and it's wrong if The Daily Show does it. Dakka is a message board that's mostly about tabletop gaming and none of us on here have any responsibility to have journalistic integrity or any such thing but if a poster consistently quoted other posters and changed the words they posted people would get upset, complain about it and the offending poster would be told to stop or face disciplinary actions against their account, because deliberately misrepresenting what people say/write is a gakky thing to do regardless of the context.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Yeah, I'm not suggesting what Milo did wasn't a gak thing to do, I'm just saying that nobody got outed, as I've seen claimed over and over, and accepted without question. This individual had already outed themselves, and was giving TV interviews advocating that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, rather than of their biological gender, which is a fairly controversial and unsettled issue.

And its disingenuous to say people on the left don't pull this kind of stuff as well. Forget big names like Trump and Bannon...shows like the Daily Show, Samantha Bee, etc routinely take a minor public figure, or just some random schmoe in a crowd, give them a disingenuous and often humiliating interview, edit the interview for maximum laughs,

As John Stewart once said, "I'm on Comedy Central...the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls".

Milo was a senior editor at an outfit ostensibly representing itself as a factual news outlet.

With the Daily Show, anyone *consenting* to an interview with the Daily Show would be familiar with the show and how they operate and what they do, they know the score and are choosing to interact directly with the show. Very different situations from those targeted by Milo.

Asking somebody to consent to be an interviewee and then editing their responses to change what that person said is a gakky thing to do. It's wrong when Katie Couric does it for her antigun movie, it's wrong when the OKeefe guy does it for his gotcha videos and it's wrong if The Daily Show does it. Dakka is a message board that's mostly about tabletop gaming and none of us on here have any responsibility to have journalistic integrity or any such thing but if a poster consistently quoted other posters and changed the words they posted people would get upset, complain about it and the offending poster would be told to stop or face disciplinary actions against their account, because deliberately misrepresenting what people say/write is a gakky thing to do regardless of the context.

The Daily Show has a known schtick, people know what they're signing up for and what they should expect, and again, theyre *Comedy Central*. If you're expecting an even handed interview and journalistic perfection, you're missing the fundamental premise.

Couric is ostensibly is serious journalist engaging in truthful journalism and people consent to interviews based on that, so when she does it, she's violating that premise. When Okeefe does it, he's passing it off as legitimate undercover journalism and hiding his real identity and purpose the whole time for political purposes. The Daily Show is a comedy show and is presenting itself as such openly as a known quantity, they're not masquerading as something else, people know what theyre getting into.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW ONLINE AT >insert address here<

And again..."the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls". Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news. Theyre commentary and comedy and make no other claims.

This shouldnt be a big deal to have to explain why one isnt held to the sam standard as others.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Yeah, I'm not suggesting what Milo did wasn't a gak thing to do, I'm just saying that nobody got outed, as I've seen claimed over and over, and accepted without question. This individual had already outed themselves, and was giving TV interviews advocating that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, rather than of their biological gender, which is a fairly controversial and unsettled issue.

And its disingenuous to say people on the left don't pull this kind of stuff as well. Forget big names like Trump and Bannon...shows like the Daily Show, Samantha Bee, etc routinely take a minor public figure, or just some random schmoe in a crowd, give them a disingenuous and often humiliating interview, edit the interview for maximum laughs,

As John Stewart once said, "I'm on Comedy Central...the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls".

Milo was a senior editor at an outfit ostensibly representing itself as a factual news outlet.

With the Daily Show, anyone *consenting* to an interview with the Daily Show would be familiar with the show and how they operate and what they do, they know the score and are choosing to interact directly with the show. Very different situations from those targeted by Milo.

Asking somebody to consent to be an interviewee and then editing their responses to change what that person said is a gakky thing to do. It's wrong when Katie Couric does it for her antigun movie, it's wrong when the OKeefe guy does it for his gotcha videos and it's wrong if The Daily Show does it. Dakka is a message board that's mostly about tabletop gaming and none of us on here have any responsibility to have journalistic integrity or any such thing but if a poster consistently quoted other posters and changed the words they posted people would get upset, complain about it and the offending poster would be told to stop or face disciplinary actions against their account, because deliberately misrepresenting what people say/write is a gakky thing to do regardless of the context.

The Daily Show has a known schtick, people know what they're signing up for and what they should expect, and again, theyre *Comedy Central*. If you're expecting an even handed interview and journalistic perfection, you're missing the fundamental premise.

Couric is ostensibly is serious journalist engaging in truthful journalism and people consent to interviews based on that, so when she does it, she's violating that premise. When Okeefe does it, he's passing it off as legitimate undercover journalism and hiding his real identity and purpose the whole time for political purposes. The Daily Show is a comedy show and is presenting itself as such openly as a known quantity, they're not masquerading as something else, people know what theyre getting into.

And again..."the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls". Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news. Theyre commentary and comedy and make no other claims.

This shouldnt be a big deal to have to explain why one isnt held to the sam standard as others.