irst the proposal claims to promote "paperwork reduction" while installing a whole new crazy array of complicated regs ON TOP OF the existing overall rules for reasonable and prudent and good engineering practice and emergency traffic priority or WTF the exact phrases.

You may have been confused by the stuff in the right-hand side of the big table. That's all existing FCC rules. I just moved them to where they'd be seen, instead of having them live in a list of footnotes as in the current Part 97.

If we are going to have unattended traffic, there needs to at least be a ham-adminstered band-plan to keep it in a subband. Nobody wins if unattended traffic is a big HF band user in non-emergency operations.

Thanks

Bruce

A great many hams are lawyers. This has some interesting uses for our project, since codecs are one of the more litigious areas of technology. A pile-on defense is actually helpful, since the other side is generally trying to make you broke while you defend yourself. We can turn that around in the Free Software tradition.

And of course it helps with spectrum defense. But there is also an ARRL Spectrum Defense fund to which you are encouraged to donate.

How does this account for all the people committing suicide in Finland? There aren't many cheap chinese food places there

Finns in general have an asian genetic admixture. So, their food is chinese :-) . They also culturally drink incredible amounts of coffee. And there are cultural differences, including a stoicism that may lead to people getting less help for emotional issues. But perhaps the biggest issue is:

It's dark there. For much of the winter. People are sensitive to light.

You don't seriously think that you'd be the first person who had to go through having a gun taken under United States law. It happens every day, and be assured that the people whose weapons are confiscated are not paid for them.

I would protect that 12 year old by taking the guns from you and people like you. She is more at risk from people with guns than any other sort of assailant. 20 dead kids are sufficient proof of that.

The blood of 20 kids is on your hands and those of all of the other gun holders. But you won't take ownership for what you, and people like you, are responsible for. But I know, and lots of people like me know. It's you.

Of course it's realistic. And it wouldn't cost $300 Billion, that's silly. It's a firearm, not a lottery ticket. You make sure it's permanently disabled, or you find yourself on a labor crew away from home and your family for a few years. In my state, that sort of prisoner gets to work in the backwoods fire crew instead of jail.

The second amendment is not a problem. You aren't part of any militia. Far from it. And if you are, we have some countries where you can serve until you're over that idea.

The point is, it's time to get tough with folks who think they can arm themselves at the expense of little kids. Don't expect sympathy.

I am not providing a statistical argument because I don't need to. The only really workable gun control is no guns. You don't need statistics to explain that.

We will get rid of 300 million guns by criminalizing possession, buy-backs, and other strategies. It won't work perfectly, but it will be sufficiently effective to save lives.

My father had war trophies, including a German luger. He was sensible about guns, and thus would not allow one that could be fired in the house. So, he rendered his souvenirs unfireable.

Those trophies, however, were stolen when our home was robbed. Little of value other than that was taken. He was really glad he'd altered them.

That's what I think should be done to your collection. Fill the barrel with molten lead, and grind off the head of the firing pin. Have it done by someone who will certify it, or do it yourself and have it certified. Then, keep your collection. No problems with property rights.

The 10th amendment is not a block to firearm regulation, since the constitution grants the various article 1 section 8 powers, which are sufficient for firearm regulation.

So how did it prevent the Ft. Hood shooting?

Hasan purchased the weapon off-base. Had the same rules existed off-base as on, his victims would be alive today.

Why should the 12-year-old not have had a firearm? Yes, she might have been harmed or killed. But 20 other children would be alive today if an effective firearm ban had been in place.

Yes, they really would stop people from getting killed. There will still be deaths, from knives and other things. But fewer of them, and the assailant will less often have the stand-off power of a gun.

I think you're misusing the quote of Franklin. It's from a 1755 letter from the Pensylvania Assembly to the King's governor of Pensylvania, and the context is that it is a letter to a monarch's deputy about the defense of the frontiersmen against the natives (who, with all justice, were upset at having their home taken by invaders). It doesn't mean that carrying a weapon is an essential freedom, or that the safety gained from a gun prohibition would be temporary.

Here is Franklin's letter:

Our Assemblies have of late had so many Supply Bills, and of such different Kinds, rejected on various Pretences; some for not complying with obsolete occasional Instructions (tho' other Acts exactly of the same Tenor had been past since those Instructions, and received the Royal Assent;) some for being inconsistent with the supposed Spirit of an Act of Parliament, when the Act itsekf did not any Way affect us, being made expresly for other Colonies; some for being, as the Governor was pleased to say, "of an extraordinary Nature," without informing us, wherein that extraordinary Nature consisted; and others for disagreeing with new discovered Meanings, and forced Constructions of a Clause in the Proprietary Commission; that we are now really at a Loss to divine what Bill can possibly pass. The Proprietary Instructions are Secrets to us; and we may spend much Time, and much of the public Money, in preparing and framing Bills for Supply, which, after all, must, from those Instructions, prove abortive. If we are thus to be driven from Bill to Bill, without one solid Reason afforded us; and can raise no Money for the King's Service, and Relief or Security of our Country, till we fortunately hit on the only Bill the Governor is allowed to pass, or till we consent to make such as the Governor or Proprietaries direct us to make, we see litttle Use of Assemblies in this Particular; and think we might as well leave it to the Governor or Proprietaries to make for us what Supply Laws they please, and save ourselves and the Country the Expence and Trouble. All Debates and all Reasonings are vain, where Proprietary Instructions, just or unjust, right or wrong, must inviolably be observed. We have only to find out, if we can, what they are, and then submit and obey. But surely the Proprietaries Conduct, whether as Fathers of their Country, or Subjects to their King, must appear extraordinary, when it is considered that they have not only formally refused to bear any Part of our yearly heavy Expences in cultivating and maintaining Friendship with the Indians, tho' they reap such immense Advantages by that Friendship; but they now, by their Lieutenant, refuse to contribute any Part towards resisting an Invasion of the King's Colony, committed to their Care; or to submit their Claim of Exemption to the Decision of their Sovereign.

In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pensylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, DESERVE neither Liberty nor Safety.--Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assemly for the King's Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their further Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, "if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs," seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by ssattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties skulking Murderers:--But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.

If the Governor proceeds on his Journey, and takes a Quorum of his Council with him, we hope, since he retains our Bill, that it will be seriously and duly considered by them; and that the same Regard for the public Welfare which induced unanimously to advise his intended Journey, will induce them as unanimously to advise his Assent. We agree therefore to his keeping the Bill, earnastly requesting he would re-consider it attentively; and shall be ready at any Time to meet him for the Purpose of enacting it into a Law.