RobertNashville

And if there hadn't been government allowed monopolies at least a 1/3 or perhaps even 1/2 of the country wouldn't have electricity, running water, natural gas, or telephone.  But then again, we are talking about internet service, not telephone, water or cable TV.   It's funny or maybe just sad...no one wants the government involved in their lives until somebody does something (or in this case might do something) they don't like.

Look guys; if you like government regulations fine...I don't.   ISPs are NOT monopolies. You want to consider them as such; fine but they still aren't.   The free market (and yes, there is a free market operating where ISPs are concerned) can work this out; not than anyone here seems to be willing to let that happen.  I expect this kind of response on a typical public forum like Facebook...it's a little surprising (and discouraging) to see it here on a firearm forum typically dripping with small-government/individual freedom rhetoric.   The title of this thread might be more descriptive if it said "Free Enterprise Capitalism Going, Going, Gone"

One grocery store within 100 miles of where a person lives is not a monopoly. That one grocery would only truly be a monopoly if it was protected from competition by barriers that prevent other people/companies opening up other grocery stores and if there were no other options for obtaining the product/service they provide. There are no barriers to entry by other grocery stores in my example and, while inconvenient at 101 or more miles away, people in this town with only one grocery are free to travel to other towns that has other grocery stores. If you still believe that this situation of one grocery store within 100 miles of your town means that the government should then control that grocery and dictate what it must/can sell and at what price that's your opinion but it isn't mine. Moreover, if the government did as you suggested, it’s quite possible and perhaps even likely, that that one grocery store would go out of business leaving none at all.     1. Sure…I’d just do business with another phone company that didn’t have that policy and if enough people felt as I did the original phone company would either be forced to change the way they do business or they would likely go out of business.   2. Difficult to say given that this is a hypothetical phone company…it might be good for some…might not be but whether it is or isn’t I’m not going to suggest that government regulation is the answer to my or their inconvenience.       I might think so if the government was allowing only one grocery story to exist but that is not at all what I said in my example. There is no government imposed requirements/barriers in my example; just that there happens to be only one.

I gave you a perfect "free market" in my grocery store example yet because it might inconvenience you if the store didn't carry what you wanted when you wanted you jumped immediately to wanting government controls ignoring all other possible ways to address your grocery store desert. ;)

So...we should only believe in free enterprise and constitutionally limited government until we are personally inconvenienced by those principles? 

I've worked in finance and IT for nearly 40 years...I hold multiple degrees in those disciplines...I actually do know a little bit about the issues and I do not agree with your position even though this decision may negatively impact me as well.   You have your view, I have mine...have a nice day.

So what you are saying is that if a business runs its business in a way you don't like the federal government should come in an dictate that business' business model? If there were only one grocery store in your town...within 100 miles of your home...should the government dictate what products they must carry and how much they can charge for them? Unlike something as basic and necessary to life as food, when it comes to the internet, we are talking about a service that no one MUST have.   If Comcast or Charter or AT&T or Verizon or whoever decides to structure their business in ways that some people don't like (and I guarantee others will like) it is not or at least should not be within the purview of the federal government to step in and dictate business models to those businesses.

It's been my experience that most people, when they call someone "ignorant" don't use it in its proper form but merely as a substitute for the clearly insulting word "stupid".   I'm not at all "ignorant" of the issue and in fact, I have a very good and comprehensive understanding of the topic...we simply don't agree (and we clearly aren't going to agree) on the real issues or their broader implications.

I see no reason for you to insult me. So this decision, MAYBE will impact you or other Comcast customers negatively. Is that sufficient reason for the government to dictate to an ISP...to ALL ISPs how it/they must operate?   I don't think so. Three are many times that certain businesses make decisions about what they offer and how that I don't happen to like...that doesn't mean I want the government to swoop in and tell them how to operate their business. This is a very simple issue for me...people either believe that businesses should be able to conduct their business freely or have their business models dictated to them by the federal government. I happen to believe that businesses should be free to design their own business models and either succeed or fail on those decisions.   Have a nice day.

I'm planning to take Emergency Action Medical from Tactical Response and also the course from The Patriot Nurse but I'd be interested in what you are describing as well.   Medical and defensive shotgun are the two areas I've decided to take training in this year!

There was a move about fracking for natural gas???

Humm...this guy most not be very bright.   If I were a convicted felon who owned or handled firearms I don't think I'd let myself be part of a national TV series...but hey...that's just me! LOL

I wish I knew how I could possibly care less about this...let them spend their money on their little movie.

It is about bandwidth and who gets it and who pays for it.   Comcast and other ISPs should be free to establish the business models they believe are best for THEM without the federal government dictating it to them...if that means that Comcast give Hulu priority over Netflix or Amazon video so be it; customers will then make the decisions that are best for them which may mean leaving Comcast or going back to DirectTV or Dish or whatever.

I would much rather spend the money on ammo.   I know how to count my rounds and if I'm in a self-defense situation I'm not going to be counting or care because I know how to keep shooting until the bad guy is no longer a threat and I also know how to reload if the slide locks back on empty and/or a tactical re-load if necessary.

Sorry Mr. BenGunn but the overwhelming majority of Republicans ARE just as bad as the vast majority of Democrats. In fact, it many ways they are WORSE because they PRETEND to be Constitutional conservatives when they are nothing of the kind...at least with most Democrats you know what you are getting! It's TIME TO DEFUND THE RNC and concentrate on electing PEOPLE that have morals, values, and principles that they won't lose within 12 months of being in office...PEOPLE who believe that the Constitution actually means what it says and says what it means...PEOPLE who will do WHAT IS RIGHT rather than what is politically expedient to get them re-elected...PEOPLE WHO WILL GO HOME after a term or two in office.   In case you missed it, please note that I didn't say one word about those people being part of any particular political party and that was NOT an oversight on my part!

This may come as a shock to some but this isn't the 1780's or the 1860's...what was common or customary or acceptable "back then" really doesn't have much to do with what’s common/customary/acceptable today -  the fact that going armed openly  may once have been common really doesn’t matter...it isn't common anymore.   Today, people, in general, are not as accepting of seeing civilians carrying arms and every mass shooting incident…every incident where some civilian goes crazy and shoots someone for no good reason (such as the retired LEO who killed a man for texting in a movie theatre)…every incident of road rage where someone winds up shot just because someone cut someone else off in traffic only serves to reinforce the idea that “guns are bad and therefore, anyone who carries one must also be bad”. Depending on where you are, carrying openly and making it obvious that you are armed is going to bother people…some people will be bothered enough that they  may well overact and call 9-1-1.   Moving on, when we talk about our "rights" and especially those that are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, I would submit that we need to be mindful of not just what the Constitution says but also what it chooses not to say.  In the case of the second amendment, nowhere does it stipulate "how" one is to bear arms or that one must bear arms at all; only that they have a natural/god-given right to do so.  As such, I find all this discussion about open vs. concealed carry to be a bit beside the point in terms of “rights”…you HAVE a right to bear arms; you DO NOT HAVE a right to bear arms openly any more than you have a right to bear arms concealed.   I suggest that the “how” you bear arms is appropriately under the prevue of the State you are in. If TN wants to allow both, so be it…if TN decided to require only concealed carry I believe that they have the constitutional power, under the second amendment to do so…that stipulating a method of carry in no way takes away your right to carry.   Since we can legally carry openly or concealed in Tennessee, we have a responsibility to ALL armed citizens to carry in a way that does not ultimately cause problems for other armed citizens. If you chose to carry openly and it never causes a problem; great. If you chose to carry openly and it ever causes a problem then it is YOU that is harming our ability to exercise our right to bear arms.

I probably will never buy an AR as I went the SCAR route but if I was going to buy one FNH is a company I would most certainly look at!

I'd actually like to NEVER NEED TO CARRY A WEAPON of any kind or anywhere.  Sadly; that is extremely unlikely to ever be the case and in fact, we are heading at near light-speed in the opposite direction. :(

Odd...my carry method, even on those occasions when I open carry, generally require pants and a belt! LOL

I think he just did. Then there are times when other gun owners ask for an opinion about, etc. In"discourage" it by not supporting OC marches and events, etc.

Depends on "who" is doing the walking and what sex the person is! :)

I still think that openly carrying is ill advised tactically and socially in many if not most public places.   As I said in my original post above, I'm not going to tell someone they "can't" openly carry (so long as it's done legally) but that doesn't mean I think doing so is a good idea.

Really sorry to hear about this Tanker...take care and prayers for you and family.

Well, I'm very vocal (at least on forums) when I see someone open carrying and it causes a problem because those who do OC that results in a problem are, I believe, hurting all of us even if that wasn't their intention.   As was eloquently pointed out earlier that I'll paraphrase; all thins may be legal but not all things are appropriate.. ;)