Ronald Reagan co-signed letter supporting Assault Gun Ban

The Second Amendment, as some have so misbelieved, has no limitations. However, as we all know, there are limits to our First Amendment freedom-of-speech rights. For example, one cannot yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. It is reasonable, therefore, that limitations should similarly exist for the Second Amendment, some of which already include denying firearm ownership to convicted felons, and those who are mentally unstable.

As some have come to so interpret it, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to empower citizens with the ability to overthrow a despotic government – not to hunt wild game. If that be the case, one mustn’t be intellectually dishonest about the matter, and must acknowledge if that interpretation is at least accurate in part, then the Second Amendment was written to give citizens the right and authority to kill their governmental leaders.

Regarding how the spirit of the Second Amendment might be honored while simultaneously providing sane regulation to prevent tragedies as we have most recently witnessed, I offer the following.

The Second Amendment reads

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

• People who own firearms – particularly military style assault weapons – should be required to, as part of their ownership – be active members in good standing of “a well regulated militia.”

• Individuals who only own hunting firearms could be exempted from militia participation requirements.

• All firearm owners should be required to pay a federal tax upon acquisition of the firearm, no matter the type.

• All firearm owners should be required to submit to a federal background investigation and security clearance, including fingerprinting.

• Military style firearms could be subject to an acquisition tax, the amount of which could be the equivalence of the purchase price, or more – similarly to the tax imposed upon fully-automatic weapons.

• Annual accountability for all firearm owners – essentially asking the legal status of the individual, e.g., whether they’ve been arrested, or convicted of any disqualifying crime or behavior, and performing mandatory annual background checks with federal, state & local Law Enforcement Agencies.

• Lying or attempting to deceive to obtain a firearm by deliberately misleading would be a federal crime, the punishment of which could be determined – perhaps even including a ban on ownership for a set period of time, up to and including a permanent lifetime ban.

—

Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban

May 05, 1994|WILLIAM J. EATON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.

Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban.

Together, the four make a formidable lobby, stretching across

Can you hear me now? FCC likely to get an earful from cellular power outages caused by Hurricane Sandy.

For many – if not most – people, communication issues and law are a complete mystery. They just want their #*@^$%! cell phones to work. That’s all.

But here’s a thumbnail sketch of why your service sucks, no matter your cell phone carrier.

In the beginning of cellular, it was once called “wireless” – it still is by insiders – and there was the “A” carrier, and the “B” carrier. The “A” carrier was the wireless carrier, while the “B” carrier was the wireless carrier for the landline company, which in most cases was BellSouth, which was gobbled up by AT&T.

The two carriers operated on different frequencies, but within the same bandwidth.

Then, cellular grew. It grew so much it needed more bandwidth. So, the FCC allocated more airwave “space” for cellular frequencies.

That was where the problems all began.

The Federal Communication Commission has regulatory purview and authority over all communications in the United States. And instead of telling the carriers that they had to adopt a common standard, they allowed each and every carrier to different technology and standards to build their networks.

Some built networks along major highways, such as Interstates. Others, concentrated on small local areas, while yet others adopted strategies that focused upon large markets like major cities. And yet none of them collaborated, and each one did their own thing.

The landline telephone in your house has one standard. Not several. As well, the routing it uses – that is, the wires that carry the signal – are invisibly routed to the end users. So, if a wire is knocked down, or damaged by digging, the signal is re-routed through another node – all which is invisible to the end users – and the call continues. That is called “redundancy,” and there are at least two back-ups to such system, which is called “dual redundancy.”

That is NOT SO with wireless.

If a signal from a cellular telephone to a cellular tower is broken, there is no recourse. The call is dropped/disconnected. And often times, once that call is dropped, neither the caller, nor the party being called can reach each other – even if one party is using a landline phone. (We’ve all gone through “cellular dead zones,” right?)

However, IF the FCC had mandated that all cellular carriers adopt a unified standard of signal transmission, they could’ve also required those same carriers to share cellular tower space. As it is now, competing cellular companies DO NOT share tower space with each other – which is why it’s possible to see cellular towers nearby, but not have any quality signal (if any) in many cases. The reason why, is that it’s not the tower for the cellular carrier you use. Too bad, eh?

Truth be told, the United States is at least 15 years or more behind the rest of the world when it comes to cellular communications. For example, in South Korea, the people in that nation have nationwide WiFi and have been watching teevee on their cellular phones for quite some time. Not so in the United States.

Why?

I refer the reader to the previous remark.

—

F.C.C. Details Storm-Related Cellphone Problems

October 31, 2012
The New York Times

By EDWARD WYATT and BRIAN X. CHEN

WASHINGTON — For all of the modern communications that keep people connected, cellphones rely on an age-old technology that has repeatedly demonstrated its own instability during emergencies — electricity.

Power systems failures throughout the Northeast have been the main culprits in the shutdown of more than 20 percent of the cell tower sites in 10 states, causing millions of lost calls on Wednesday, government and industry officials said.

Slow progress was made in restoring some services. Federal Communications Commission officials said that the percentage of cell tower sites not working in the storm-damaged areas declined “by a few percentage points” as of Wednesday morning, down from about 25 percent on Tuesday.

Wired broadband and cable television systems remained out of service for

U.S. officials: Attack on consulate in Libya may have been planned

By Karen DeYoung, Michael Birnbaum and William Branigin, Published: September 12

U.S. officials and Middle East analysts said Wednesday that an attack that killed four Americans at a U.S. Consulate in eastern Libya may have been planned by extremists and inspired by al-Qaeda.

The U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans were killed Tuesday in an assault on the consulate in the city of Benghazi. President Obama strongly condemned the attack and pledged to bring the perpetrators to justice, vowing that “justice will be done.”

The attack followed a violent protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over

Apple’s iPhone 5 Sales Could Add Half a Point to GDP

Published: Monday, 10 Sep 2012 | 4:35 PM ET

By: John Melloy
Executive Producer, Fast Money& Halftime

Michael Nagle | Stringer | Getty Images News

Sales of Apple’s [AAPL] iPhone 5 could add as much as half a percentage point to U.S. fourth-quarter annualized GDP, according to JPMorgan, underscoring the