Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites

cluge writes "A recent American Rifleman contained small column that said that Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites. Being the eternal skeptic, this claim was tested by downloading the trial version and running some tests against it. To my surprise I found the every NRA site was blocked and was in the category 'weapons.' This even included the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. Some sites that were not blocked were notable anti-gun rights sites such as The Brady Campaign, and Good Bye Guns. The only anti-gun rights site that was blocked that I could find was Hand Gun Control's web site." Read on for more.

cluge continues: "My rather informal test still raises the spectre that a large corporate entity may be clandestinely trying to sway you or your child's political views by censoring content from one side of a political debate. This is indeed chilling, especially considering that such software is required to be used in libraries to protect children. Is this political slant common in censorware? Have slashdotters found similar glitches in other 'parental control' software?"

Slashdot has certainly covered censorware before, but reports like this are still valuable as the world evolves.

Re:Hypocrites.

>> Can anyone recommend a good non-symantec [...] software firewall? (Please, please, please don't say ZoneAlarm.)

Linux.

Re:Hypocrites.

Parking that thing would be a pain; I'd recommend a Harrier Jumpjet instead.

Re:Hypocrites.

"Yay! I can stop viruses and render all my games useless! All that, and I still get the privledge of installing patches regularly. Sign me up!"

Heh. Sarcasm aside, NG's got a point. Switching OS's to solve one problem will eventually lead to new problems opening up. I know lot of you would marry Linux given the choice, but the dude wants a simple solution to the particular problem, not a solution that'll be painful for him. If you tell him to switch so he can avoid viruses, then EVERY little problem Linux has will turn into reasons not to use it. As NG pointed out, your games stop working. (Well that's not really true, you can get a lot of Windows games working in Linux, but without trying it first hand I'm not sure how far I'd trust it.) If Linux doesn't have an app (or he can't find it) and he can't do something he could once do in Windows, he's going to turn around and say "why'd I even switch in the first place? All I wanted was an f'in virus scanner!"

Long story short, don't shout Linux every time a Windows user wants to fix a problem. Unless things go just right, you risk making them a Windows user forever. That's what happened to me. Everybody shouted at me about how great Linux is, didn't take me long to go back to Windows 2000. (I do plan on trying again in a year or so.)

Re:Hypocrites.

But if you unplug it, doesn't that leave open ports in the back of it?

Re:Hypocrites.

If you object to laws that prohibit certain types of objectionable content AND you object to programs that give parents controls, then YOU'RE the hypocrite. You can't have both.

Re:Hypocrites.

Do you also believe your local library should stock Playboy on the shelves with Popular Science?

I don't think there is a valid arguement that justify having a system with no filtering at all. If you want to argue you should be able to verify your age to a librarian to have controls removed, fine. That still doesn't change the fact that a library has no business placing pornography within easy access to children.

I'm perfectly willing to say the way it's done probably should be adjusted to take into account the rights of adult. It's not even LEGAL for you to show those sites to your own children, so how can you justify a library doing it for you?

Speaking as a junior high teacher, I can safely say it creates an UPROAR when I sent kids to the Onion and they HAPPENED to have an advertisement with a woman in lingerie. I can't control what advertisements show up, and I'd love to have those filtered out for me, even if they site they show up on is perfectly reasonable to go to.

Re:Hypocrites.

If it was a library that had everything, i.e., something similar to the Library of Congress, then stocking Playboys would be appropriate. Though, of course, it still would not be appropriate to place them right beside the children's books.

But given that libraries cannot generally carry every book, they must make decisions as to what would carry more social value. Thus the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc. ar all going to be purchased before Playboys or Penthouses. It's not that Playboys don't belong, it's that they have less value than other alternatives.

Providing access to the Internet is providing access to a wealth of information. Librarians don't have to make a conscious choice for every site. Including all sites is just as easy as including any. It actually takes more effort to filter than simply allow everything, and so the reasons why Playboys are not in libraries is disanalogous to Internet filtering.

What would be more analagous is if a library bought an extremely large encyclopedia, and actively ripped out pages containing offensive content. Most encyclopedias, of course, don't have anything as objectionable as what you can find on the Internet, but the principle is still the same.

protecting children

As a parent, I also want add that it is a lot easier to protect my daughter from guns, porn, drugs and whaever other devil that they are likely to conjure up than it is from a system that becomes more and more like a police state.

Why arn't people discussing how to protect thrir kids from that?

Re:Hypocrites.

Huh? How is objecting to a law that unsuccessfully attempts to prohibit objectionable content while requiring tax payer money be spent to achive that end and objecting to a program that fails miserably at allowing parents to control said content (by design, in this case, unless you're an anti-gun parent who couldn't care less if pro-gun legislation sites get censored while anti-gun legislation sites somehow slip under the radar) make the poster a hypocrite?

Re:Hypocrites.

Try a bit hard to follow the logic. Many parents think violence, and content glorifying violence -- including not only violent video games and movies, but also content like weapon advocacy, hobbyist sites-- is bad for their children; something they'd rather they not read/see. Plus obviously information regarding weaponry can be viewed as risky and harmful ("finding sites on Internet that describe how to build bombs") in general.

Sites that are "anti-gun" oriented generally do NOT have much to do with actual guns and their usage (except for statistics regarding fatalities, crime rates), ergo they are not different sides of a coin in the sense that's relevant to censoring the content.

I just get the feeling that people are way too lazy to even try to see rationale between different handling. I doubt Symantec is trying to censor discussion regarding "gun rights" and gun control laws, but rather blocking access to sites that have lots of gun (not gun LAW) content.

Above is just general idea, however, and it is likely that actual distinction between political sites, and gun hobbyist/nut sites is done as inefficiently as distinction between porn sites and sites with non-sexual nudity. But it shouldn't be THAT hard to see why blocking could divide sites, even without company commenting on gun legislation itself.

Re:Hypocrites.

Try a bit hard to follow the logic. Many parents think violence, and content glorifying violence -- including not only violent video games and movies, but also content like weapon advocacy, hobbyist sites-- is bad for their children; something they'd rather they not read/see. Plus obviously information regarding weaponry can be viewed as risky and harmful ("finding sites on Internet that describe how to build bombs") in general.

Um, have you actually BEEN to the NRA's website? You're confusing a political organization with a sales & review website. There's approximately two guns I could see on the main page just now, both of which are part of the NRA ILA seal drawing.

The fact remains that this is political favoritism on the part of a corporation. Part of the problem with this that they do NOT state this as such. I plan on teaching my children to shoot starting around age 4, and my wife agrees enthusiastically. Being able to visit the NRA website allows kids to participate in NRA youth programs there, which all emphasize saftey around firearms.

The NRA is a political organization. The only advantage to blocking it is purely political. Even a cursory glance at the site will tell you that.

Re:Hypocrites.

ZoneAlarm isn't *that* bad, but if it doesn't float your boat, there's also Sygate Personal Firewall (also free or pro) and Tiny Personal Firewall. I've used Sygate before, and found them to be pretty good. Tiny was a little weird, so I never really used it. There's also Kerio personal firewall, which is also free but I've never used.

Don't get BlackICE Defender.

And I stopped buying Symantec products after they announced product activation. I mean jeez, how much money do they honestly think they're losing in the utilities business? As much as I dislike mcafee, I'll use them as long as they don't have activation.

Re:Hypocrites.

I have to agree. If it were a site discussing how to use a firearm to wreak havoc,shoot people on street corners or wage a guerilla war, that would be one thing. According to the headline they are blocking purely political web sites and that is unacceptable. This being slashdot, I know better than to take that at face value, so I'm creating a disk image of my hard drive right now so I can test it myself.

If this is true, I will be advocating a boycott of Symantec on my site. Slashdot it ain't, but it has a considerable number of readers and it's in Symantec's industry, security and privacy.

About your firewall, try Kerio or Sygate.

Re:Hypocrites.

Sites aren't anti-NRA, they're anti-gun.

I could tell you that guns kill people and animals, and that's what they're designed for. Killing people is bad, so guns must be bad, right? Perhaps 20,000 people in any given year die to "gun violence," and if we got rid of guns, then there couldn't be anymore gun violence. I could also insert various statements that might sound true, but with a little investigation (that I'm not going to do for you), you'd find out that they were actually lies.

I could also tell you that in any given year, around four billion bullets are fired in the United States. So, 0.0005% of all bullets fired in the United States kill someone. Lots of criminals use guns to do violence, but overall the number of gun owners who manage to not rob/kill someone grossly outnumber the criminals. Millions of home invasions each year are probably prevented by the homeowner having and knowing how to use a gun (note how there's no way to measure this, but you'll still see statistics about dogs "being just as effective as preventing home invasions" as guns).

I can tell you half of any story, and if it's also impossible for you to check the facts for yourself, you have no other information to go on than what I've given you. You might understand that what you're hearing might not be true, but I can isolate your children and feed them an anti-gun story and win the war in the long run.

Re:Hypocrites.

Symantec Personal Firewall and Internet Security are only blocking pro-weapons sites if you check the box marked "weapons". That seems to be exactly the point.

The author seems to find it double standards that it doesn't also block anti-weapon sites. That argument is plain ridiculous. That's like saying you can't block porn without also blocking anti-porn, and can't block crime sites without also blocking law sites.

No, I don't believe in censorship, but I believe even less in forcing people who voluntarily block something to also blocking something else. That smells badly of censorship too.

--
*Art

Missing the point entirely...

You, and a lot of other people apparently, seem to be missing the point. We don't care if they block anti-gun sites also. I don't want them to, and the poster probably doesn't either. What we're outraged about is that sites solely dedicated to promoting true information and political discussion about legal gun use (hunting, target shooting, self-defense, etc), and promoting the defense of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (yes, we still have one), are lumped together with sites that may tell you how to build a bomb or homemade gun and may promote the uses of such for nefarious, illegal purposes. This is what is unacceptable to us. They are censoring only one side of a political discussion.

When it comes right down to it, the NRA and similar websites talk about the same things that that anti-gun sites talk about, i.e., guns and gun rights (gasp!). Thus if they (Symantec) followed their own insanity properly they would also lump anti-gun sites into the "weapons" category. So in the end, this really is a case of blatant anti-gun bias. The filter creators want your children to see anti-gun information even when you've told the filter you want to block "weapons" sites. They've made the political decision for you that it's OK to show your children "weapons" sites as long as they are anti-gun sites.

All I know is, Symantec products are crap, they're implementing activation features, and now this shite. It's the straw that broke this camel's back. I'll never buy or recommend another Symantec product.

Other people have made recommendations for alternatives, but here's mine anyway to help increase the signal-to-noise ratio:
Firewall: Kerio Personal Firewall [kerio.com]
Anti-virus: AVG [grisoft.com]

(Both free for personal use.)

Re:Hypocrites.

This isn't about private handgun ownership, it's about a company deciding that you don't need to read articles and opinions they don't like.

Re:Hypocrites.

What do handguns have to do with this particular thread? The point is not *what* is being censored, but it's that non-obscene websites showing only one side of a political debate are being censored. One's views on gun control are irrelevant on this topic. I wouldn't want the NRA's site censored any more than a vehelment anti-gun site. (Okay, that's not true, but I don't like either.) The ends don't justify the means.

ACLU to help out?

I doubt it. Check out ACLU policy statement #47:

The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

Re:ACLU to help out?

Basically anybody who I can predict what they are going to say before they open their mouth (Charles Heston or Michael Moore) just bores the shit out of me.

You must be seriously disappointed with the state of Slashdot these days!

Re:ACLU to help out?

Well, if the ACLU does not fight this then it would confirm suspicions that they care more about pushing a left-wing agenda than defending the rights of all Americans.

The ACLU has defended groups from one end of the political spectrum to the other, as long as the issues fall within their areas of concern.

Symantec is, or course, a private company, and so may block whatever sites they wish. However, since this type of software is specifed in CIPA, there certainly could be issues there.

ACLU on CIPA [aclu.org]

Re:ACLU to help out?

[the ACLU] care more about pushing a left-wing agenda than defending the rights of all Americans.

In point of fact, it is the "left-wing" of American politics which has been the champion of people's rights. "Right-wing" politicians have been on the wrong side of these issues for over thirty years. At least since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And incidentally, the ACLU does fight for the rights of all Americans. They have fought right along side Republicans in the past. Such as when they fought the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law as a violation of the first amendment. Conservatives everywhere had to STFU about the good ol' ACLU on that one. But everyone forgets so quickly. Especially as the ACLU is often at odds with Conservatives...but this is primarily because conservatives are so often at odds with the Bill of Rights. Go figure.

Re:ACLU to help out?

In point of fact, it is the "left-wing" of American politics which has been the champion of people's rights. "Right-wing" politicians have been on the wrong side of these issues for over thirty years. At least since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Bull. It's been about power, who has it, and who wants it. Left/right wing has meant pretty much nothing in terms of who votes for what bill that infringes civil rights, except that the right wing will tend to fight for freedoms in certain areas that the left wing won't and vice versa. Neither will stand up for something like free speech if that gets in the way of some other agenda.

Re:ACLU to help out?

Well, if the ACLU does not fight this then it would confirm suspicions that they care more about pushing a left-wing agenda than defending the rights of all Americans

Or they may simply disagree with your interpretation as to what the rights of Americans are! *SHOCK*

I very much doubt the people in charge of the ACLU sit in a boardroom going:

ACLU 1: Haha! Now we may destroy the rights of the common man in pursuit of the international communist conspiracy!

ACLU 2: I agree! It's a good thing we don't need to think about actual interpretations of anything and only need to determine what a left wing stereotype would do!

ACLU 1: Yes, the world certainly would be difficult if there were more than two political positions!

Re:ACLU to help out?

Or they may simply disagree with your interpretation as to what the rights of Americans are! *SHOCK*

They may disagree with the content of the web sites, but they should defend the rights of those with whom they disagree to have their say--especially when this sort of stupid blocking software is mandated by the government for use in schools and libraries.

Re:ACLU to help out?

Uh, just because the ACLU is anti-gun doesn't mean it doesn't support the free speech rights of pro-gun people. I mean, the ACLU supports neo-Nazis' free speech rights, but they're not Nazis.

Re:ACLU to help out?

Uh, just because the ACLU is anti-gun doesn't mean it doesn't support the free speech rights of pro-gun people. I mean, the ACLU supports neo-Nazis' free speech rights, but they're not Nazis.

The ACLU is unlikely to see anything wrong with what Symantec is doing. How would forcing Symantec to be more "fair and balanced" support free speech in any conceivable way? Symantec is not the government, and isn't required to support any particular viewpoint. In a free society, you fight back against something like this by providing a competing alternative choice. However, consider that in today's America reading pro-gun sites in school could make your teachers nervous and/or get you suspended or expelled. It's easy to see why there's a lot of paranoia over this issue, and with people getting expelled for writing fictional stories about school shootings, I understand why Symantec chose to block these sites. I don't even think it neccessarily represents their political agenda, but rather the expectations of the user base for this kind of blocking software.

Re:ACLU to help out?

You seem to have missed what most people miss when dealing with the ACLU's stance on issues.

The ACLU doesn't look at most issues in a case by case basis. They realize that the best way to protect your constitutional rights isn't through the congress or through the executive, but through the court system. Consequently the ACLU isn't looking at issues case by case for what they agree with, they are looking for cases that will make very strong precidents for the future issues they agree with.

Now then, when the Govt required libraries to block access to porn sites in the interest of "protecting our children" the ACLU steped in and helped fight it. Today libraries must be able to remove those blocks at a moments notice should someone have a desire to view those sites who is not a minor.

This is based on previous precidents reguarding obsenity and indecency.

The Symantec system (potentialy) represents a MUCH STRONGER precident beacuse it does not hit those obsenity laws at all. Noone has made an effort to declare handguns or firearms indecent or obscene in their community and consequently this sort of thing provides the ACLU with a great case to overturn laws requireing such a system.

The ACLU will fight this if given the chance, not because of what Symentec is blocking, but because Symentec is blocking ANYTHING.

Re:ACLU to help out?

This makes it unfortunate that they do fight a lot of fights I consider good and thus worth supporting. Only willful misreading could get such a meaning out of the 2nd Amendment. It is utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people could believe that a group of founders who had just successfully led an armed rebellion drawing heavily on the grassroots arms and knowledge of arms against an officially sanctioned armed State could have intended that only arms sanctioned by a new State and controlled by them be allowed.

Re:ACLU to help out?

Agreed 100% (but why do I NEVER have mod-points when I need 'em?). Oh well.

For some real second amendment fun, folks should check out http://www.jpfo.org the guys who had the temerity to place the 1968 Gun Control Act next to a translation of pre-WW2 Nazi-era gun control laws, and let folks see the similarities for themselves. Although the JPFO site doesn't advocate violence, I'm sure the censorware blocks it if they blocked the NRA (and believe me, JPFO & NRA aren't exactly buddies even though they're both "on the same side of the issue"!).

The ACLU is wonderful on freedom of speech, but there are various other rights (not just self-defense, either) they desperately-need to start thinking-about, or they'll continue to be pigeonholed as irrelevant leftists IMO. Economic liberty, for example, should not be just for the rich, and the ACLU could set a few examples to that end almost-effortlessly (while simultaneously tweaking the fans of that "Patriot" act nonsense which is sweeping the USA at the moment).
JMR

Speaking ONLY for Jim Ray and NO other company/individual/entity/etc.

Re:ACLU to help out?

"folks should check out http://www.jpfo.org the guys who had the temerity to place the 1968 Gun Control Act next to a translation of pre-WW2 Nazi-era gun control laws, and let folks see the similarities for themselves. "

How delightfully manipulative of them. Just because the Nazis had some really nasty and horrible idiology doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they did was bad. They did not stop making regular decisions because it wasn't evil enough.

You could probably find some crazy group that agrees with your opponents in any argument and use the agreement against them, but that is just low.

Re:ACLU to help out?

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.
Only willful misreading could get such a meaning out of the 2nd Amendment.

the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'

I'm not sure how deliberate your misreading needs to be. The only real problem is how you reconcile the first part of the sentence with the last, and I don't think the confusing word is well-regulated, or even arms. I think the word you'd have to interpret is "people". I think I'm fairly safe in saying that "the people" in the Constitution is often referring to the country as a whole, not individual citizens.

Consider Amendment V - No person or Amendment VI - the accused. Each time they didn't use a generic "people" because they were giving specific rights to specific people. However, notice Amendment X. Here there are clearly three general layers of government: Federal, States, and "The People".

No body argues that "The People" of the United States should be allowed to own guns, but the amendment doesn't have to be contorted to say that INDIVIDUALS aren't necessarily uniformly given that right.

Re:ACLU to help out?

You're suffering under the misconception that the constitution grants rights. It doesn't. What it does, is enjoin the government from infringing on our rights.

The Second amendment says that, because of the need for the militia, the government will not infringe on our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. It does not grant the right to self-defense, it acknowledges the right and states one reason for not infringing it.

Here's an exercise for you: go and read the Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme court decided that blacks weren't citizens. Among the statements in the decision, was the horrified speculation that if blacks were citizens, they'd have to be allowed to bear arms!

-jcr

Re:ACLU to help out?

I think I'm fairly safe in saying that "the people" in the Constitution is often referring to the country as a whole, not individual citizens.

Consider Amendment V - No person or Amendment VI - the accused. Each time they didn't use a generic "people" because they were giving specific rights to specific people. However, notice Amendment X. Here there are clearly three general layers of government: Federal, States, and "The People".

No body argues that "The People" of the United States should be allowed to own guns, but the amendment doesn't have to be contorted to say that INDIVIDUALS aren't necessarily uniformly given that right.

"The people" referenced in the 2nd amendment are the same "the people" mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Your interpretation above (that the words "person," and "accused" "gave" specific rights to specific people (btw, the constitution does NOT "give" rights, it GUARANTEES them!)) would suggest that the right to assembly is not, in fact, an individual right, but a collective right.

Imagine being told that "the people" had the right to assemble, but that individual persons (in fact, all of those who make up "the people") were not allowed to attend a political rally.

BTW, the below is my sig and not part of this comment.

Re:ACLU to help out?

What flavor of misreading is required to ignore the first thirteen words of the amendmant? Did Jefferson qualify his prose with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" because he was feeling particularly verbose? Did he worry that people wouldn't take him seriously if he didn't use some padding that shaped his meaning in no way?

If the founders simply meant that we should have unfettered access to weapons, everything before the comma is extraneous and misleading. The founders were not idiots, and Jefferson was not an incompetent writer. Every syllable is there for a purpose.

Re:ACLU to help out?

What flavor of misreading is required to ignore the first thirteen words of the amendmant? Did Jefferson qualify his prose with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" because he was feeling particularly verbose? Did he worry that people wouldn't take him seriously if he didn't use some padding that shaped his meaning in no way?

If the founders simply meant that we should have unfettered access to weapons, everything before the comma is extraneous and misleading. The founders were not idiots, and Jefferson was not an incompetent writer. Every syllable is there for a purpose.

Not being a fan of guns I hate to point this out but the original poster is correct. What the second ammendment says is:

"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."

This should be paraphrased as:

"We have to have a well-regulated militia in order to ensure the security of the free State. In order to have a free militia, the government cannot pass laws that infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms."

There are two important parts to understanding this. First the writer(s) are stating that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right. The amendment doesn't grant the right, it recognizes that it already exists. Second, the reason for the pre-amble is that the writer(s) are explaining why it is necessary to explicitly re-state this right. Its almost like they are saying "look, I know this is a bit odd, but we really need to keep the right to bear arms because it is the only way to maintain a well-regulated militia, and we need that to maintain freedom".

Now, I personally disagree with the view being stated in the amendment - I don't think we need individuals bearing arms to keep freedom in the modern world. I am in favor of gun control. But I do believe the second ammendment states that the government cannot pass laws that infringe on the right to bear arms. Therefore I have to reluctantly accept that the second ammendment means what the NRA claims it means.

Re:ACLU to help out?

Did Jefferson qualify his prose with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" because he was feeling particularly verbose?

Firstly, Jefferson didn't write the Bill of Rights. James Madison did [americaslibrary.gov]. And the phrase isn't a qualification, it's an explanation.

The founders were not idiots, and Jefferson was not an incompetent writer. Every syllable is there for a purpose.

Indeed. But we would disagree on what that purpose is.

Here's a page [2asisters.org] I found the other day, that had an interesting analogy in it: examine the sentence

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

If you believe, as you appear to, that the first bit in the 2nd Amendment implies certain restrictions on how to interpret the second part, then you should also believe that in the sentence above, people will only be allowed to read books if they are members of the well-schooled electorate.

If the founders simply meant that we should have unfettered access to weapons, everything before the comma is extraneous and misleading.

No, it's not misleading. It's just misleading you, into believing that Jefferson (no, Madison) intended that private firearm ownership be restricted to some sort of state-controlled militia. I notice that you in no way had any rebuttal to grandparent's point that

It is utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people could believe that a group of founders who had just successfully led an armed rebellion drawing heavily on the grassroots arms and knowledge of arms against an officially sanctioned armed State could have intended that only arms sanctioned by a new State and controlled by them be allowed.

Please respond -- preferably to the substantive issue, instead of with incorrect grammatical pedantry.

Re:ACLU to help out?

"Regulated" means orderly and disciplined, or well-trained. A militia is, by definition, a group of civilians with military training but /not/ under the direct authority of the government.

Updated to modern language: "A strong and vigilant citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The norm at the time being unlicensed ownership and use of firearms, it would be absurd to consider the amendment to be anything but a statement of the /individual/ right to bear arms. If it had been intended to curtail this right, then it would have been worded as such, as with the other amendments which have restricted our individual rights (eg. Prohibition.)

Every other article of the Bill of Rights guarantees an individual freedom. Why would the second amendment be an exception? Indeed, if it were to be interpreted as you say, then isn't it patently obvious and ridiculously superfluous? Of course the /government/ and its armies have a right to bear arms!

We're dealing with words over two hundred years old. If their meaning is not clear enough after updating to the modern vernacular, one need only consult the context: there would have been no American revolution had there not been a skilled armed citizenry to carry it out.

ACLU: NRA vs. NAMBLA

was "re: ACLU to help out? [slashdot.org]"

I doubt it. Check out

ACLU policy statement #47 [aclu.org]:

The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

The ACLU is too busy defending the right to promote child molesting. [aclu-mass.org]

While

NAMBLA [nambla1.de] may extol conduct which is currently illegal, its materials fall far short of speech that may be prohibited. If that rule were to be changed to allow a suit like this one, it would introduce a regime of conformity to majority rule that would threaten the very right to dissent."

In self-serving fashion, the ACLU notes that the father of the murdered boy -- who is suing NAMBLA -- praises the ACLU for defending NAMBLA

While intent on pressing their suit against NAMBLA, the Curley family has acknowledged ACLU's concerns. In a Boston Globe article which appeared shortly after the ACLU entered the case, Jeffrey Curley's father, Bob Curley, is quoted as saying that he harbors no ill feelings toward the ACLU for defending the case. "I really do have respect for them (ACLU)", said Curley. "They are very consistent in whom they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage."

Wired [wired.com] puts a different spin on it:

Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the group's members.

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.

The ACLU interprets Roe v. Wade as meaning that minors must be allowed to get an abortion, without having to even notify [aclu.org] their parents (much less get their permission), and that taxpayers must subsidize abortions [aclu.org].

But "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the government," because a 30 year old woman is apparently too stupid to weight the risks vs. benefits of owning and/or carrying a firearm for self-protection, and can be denied the right to make that choice.

If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.

Constitutional scholars who have bothered to write about the issue in various law review journals do not agree with the ACLU's position. You can read the law review articles for yourself at the Second Amendment Law Library [guncite.com]. Much better than stuff put out by any pro- or anti-gun special interest group.

In justifying the ACLU's position on gun control, ACLU President Nadine Strossen said that [reason.com]

Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessaril

Statement #47 is VERY misleading

What the ACLU didn't tell you there is that the Supreme Court has only touched one 2nd amendment case, and that was some 60 years ago (forgive me if the dates are wrong - I'm doing this from memory). However there are 2 cases coming through the pipeline that the SCOTUS will likely grant cert to (this means they will hear the cases). One from a conservative 5th circuit, and one from a liberal 9th circuit.

There are two interpretations of the 2nd amendment: The first says that it is a 'collective' right, that only state militias are given the right to bear arms; The second theory holds that this freedom is extended to individuals. If and when the SCOTUS hears these cases, many legal scholars expect the court hold the "individual rights" theory (please note that every other freedom spelled out in the Bill of Rights is extended to the individual). You probably have already figured out quite obviously that the 5th circuit takes the "individual right" theory and the 9th circuit holds the "collective rights" theory.

Also, Judge Reinhardt from the 9th circuit, one the most liberal judges on the 9th circuit (and perhaps the most liberal judge in the entire country), concedes (and correctly I might add) that ex-military and ex-law enforcement officers are not "super citizens" that are allowed to bear arms while the rest of the country is not.

For you legal eagles out there, here are the cites for the two cases:

Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (2002) - this is the 9th circuit case

U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001) - this is the 5th circuit case.

The 9th circuit case is great because there is are EXCELLENT dissertations on both the collective and indivual rights theories. I'm glad things like this are on slashdot, we as geeks need to be more informed at the voting booth. Whatever side you take on this issue, just remember to vote!!

Thanks,

--Matt

Re:Keep in mind

In other European countries guns are outlawed, too, and the crime rate is a lot lower than in England. So what do you want to prove?

Re:Keep in mind

Bzzt. Wrong. Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales And here's the 1995 ones: 5278 - US 8179 - Germany 6316 - France 7206 - England & Wales Now, there's 2 things to notice here. 1) The US rate is CONSIDERABLY lower. and 2) The US rate is dropping while the European rates are climbing. Now, would you care to make an argument backed up factually? (for those that want all the details, you can grab the Interpot docs here [interpol.int]

Re:Keep in mind

scripsit eericson:

Bzzt. Wrong. Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales And here's the 1995 ones: 5278 - US 8179 - Germany 6316 - France 7206 - England & Wales

Um, the discussion was about murder. So let's look at murder numbers, not total crime. (BTW, Interpol doesn't have anything for England/Wales in 1995 -- they start in 1996 -- so I'm not sure where you got your figures from).

OK... using 1996 and 2001 murders per 100k population (the widest span on which they have data for all these states) -- U.S.: 7.41 to 5.61; Germany: 4.32 to 3.21; France: 4.11 to 3.91; England/Wales: 2.60 to 1.63.

Wow! That's interesting. Every one of these has a decline from 1996 to 2001 -- including England and Wales. In fact, England and Wales, where that handgun ban supposedly made murder rampant, looks like its murder rate is about 30% of the U.S.'s. Fascinating...

Thank $deity we have all those guns here in the States keeping us safe...

Re:Keep in mind

Britain's gun ban was instituted in the late 90s after a bunch of kids got killed at an elementary school by a loony armed to the teeth with guns. This recalls the spate of school shootings in the US during the same period. But Britain's astronomic explosion in violent crime and gun crime began after the gun ban, while the US, which didn't institute a wide-ranging gun ban, has seen crime rates stand still or fall.

What kind of bullshit is this?

I grew up in England. I lived there for 23 years. At no point during that time was owning a gun legal, unless you were using it for hunting, and even then, only under very specific rules and regulations.

What kind of crack are you smoking? Where do you get this idea that guns were generally available in England before the late 90s?

Re:Keep in mind

Last I checked, England had one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. I assume much has not changed in a couple of years.

If you can give me a few statistics to make me believe that England has a higher homicide rate than DC then I will change my views accordingly. But having lived in London for some time, I am pretty sure that you will not find any such information.

Re:Can We Say Liberals?

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

I just had to comment after all the wackos did. You did an excellent job of rounding up all the libs with that comment. But they still don't get it. Some still think that if you outlaw guns, no one will have them, including bad guys. Ironically, its not that hard to make a home made weapon anyway, especially with lower power (but deadly enough) shells like .22 or .380.

People seem to forget that the % of people who die in wars or crime is lower now, than it was before guns. Anyone having a doubt about how you can kill without a gun should go rent Joan of Arc. Quite vivid. If a mugger can't point a gun (loaded or not) then he IS more likely to just slit your throat anyway.

Re:Mixed Emotions

I have mixed emotions about this. I dislike the NRA, and I am even creating a DooM 3 mod, lampooning them.

If you tolerate the censorship of those with whom you disagree then you are no better than the censors.

Emotions -- Sigh.

Okay, I understand the spirit of your post, at least I think so. However, a basic problem in arguing censorship is with the second word in the title of your post.

This isn't about emotions, yours or anyone else's. This isn't about gun control either. Other posts on this board are pointing to the NRA's activities as though they should matter. Should they? Maybe. I don't know for sure, I'd have to reason that out and it would take more time than I have to write this post.

However, when considering issues of this nature, people need to leave their emotions at the door and consider the basic tenet at work which is, as you stated, free speech.

Remember, free speech does *not* mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater. It does not mean you can threaten anyone's life, at least in the state of California, if it is reasonable to suppose that you may carry out the threat and you have the reasonable ability to do so.

I only point these things out because free speech does not guarantee all speech in all situations. It doesn't guarantee the right of certain organizations to be protected merely by virtue of their having been organized and created. Whatever the average American believes about free speech -- and I am, by the way, a pretty typical American, and durn proud uv it -- it doesn't mean you can say anything you want and, in fact, censorship is a daily, very legal reality in the lives of all Americans and has been for decades, whether they believe they've been able to shout from the rooftops whatever they please or not.

So, should the NRA be censored? At first blush, I would say probably not, but to tell you the truth I really don't know for sure. I'm not big on the NRA, but I'm not particularly opposed to them either. What's important to remember is that this issue *should* be about free speech and not about gun control, people's feelings, or sticking it to whomever whatever respective group feels it should be stuck to.

Whoever is responsible

deserves to be shot.

Re:Maybe it makes sense

Think about it: NRA and other gun sites are about how to find weapons and use them. Anti Gun sites arent, in fact they discourage their use. what theyre trying to block is not the advocacy of gun rights, its the advocacy of GUNS THEMSELVES.

Read the article. The sites blocked include the NRA's lobbying site. That most certainly falls under the category of "advocacy of gun rights". This certainly falls under the umbrella of "view point discrimination" and goverment supported entities, including libraries, have no business using this software.

Furthermore, you unfairly characterize the activities of the NRA. Most of the non-lobbying work of the NRA is promoting the sports of hunting and target shooting. While you may morally object to hunting (as is your right) it is a legal activity virtually everywhere. Target shooting is an internationally recognized sport, and is included in both the summer and winter olympics. The NRA also supports the hobby of collecting guns of historical and cultural interest.

Topics that I have never seen in an NRA publication include: how to illegally acquire a gun, how to convert a gun to automatic operation, how to manufacture illegal ammunition, etc.

The solution?

Don't use Symantec Internet Security 2004. It's not a violation of anyone's rights unless it's mandated by the government.

Re:The solution?

Don't use Symantec Internet Security 2004. It's not a violation of anyone's rights unless it's mandated by the government.

The twist is that federal laws require filtering software on internet connections provided at libraries. The primary purpose of this law is to prevent minors from accessing pornography.

Given that there are relatively few vendors of this sort of software, it is likely that many libraries are using this software. It is also likely that many of these libraries don't have the budget to purchase a competing product. Therefore we can reasonably expect that the government (taxpayer funded libraries) is engaged in viewpoint discrimination.

Consequently, libraries are faced with limited choices. First, they could expend extra money and time to purchase another product - which is resources that could otherwise be spent inproving other services. Second, they could turn off internet access altogether, further limiting the access of poor people to the net. Third, they could face a costly lawsuit. No good can come of this.

Oh shit...

...here comes another +1000-comment pro-gun/anti-gun flamewar :(

Re:Oh shit...

If you use Symantec's product, it's only a 500 comment anti-gun rant. :)

Obligatory...

You don't want the King of England to just walk in here and start pushing you around, do you? Huh?

Disclaimer: I am an avid shooter and a member of the NRA.

Re:Obligatory...

Totalm CRAP!!! Why do you people continue to parrot garbage like this when you obviously base your knowlege on watcing some removed-from-reallity movie??
Go read a basic book on aircraft. Aircraft are presurized by bleeding compressed air from the engines into the cabin (after cooling it first). And how does the air remain fresh ?? BY BLOWING OUT OF THE HUGE HOLES AT THE TAIL-END OF THE AIRCRAFT.
There are ALREADY big holes in the cabin, and you don't see passengers being sucked out do you?
How much difference do you think a 9mm hole or two is going to make to the air pressure?? Even if a window goes, there will NOT much more than a strong draught.
Do you think air-marchals have magic bullets???

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Wrong)

Pos(t)er claims:

firing a gun in an aircraft cabin will likely lead to an imminent crash.

This has been disproven dozens of times in government-sponsored tests. Bullets will neither cause abrupt decompression nor can they cause catastrophic failure of the airframe or even a side window (they are made of Lexan and will not shatter). You can calculate the maximum rate of air loss, because the speed of a gas escaping through a narrowing passage cannot exceed the speed of sound in the gas. For a hole of 10 mm or so, it just isn't much.

The noise of air whistling out might be a problem, but the people who just heard muzzle blast inside an enclosed cabin probably wouldn't be able to hear that in time for it to become a big concern either. If it bugs anyone, you can always stuff the hole with a corner of a pillow.

Default action?

If its set to block those sites out of the box, surely it can be made to unblock them or remove those sites from the 'weapons' category?

Re:Logic...

I think the logic behind this (not that I think it should be applied here) essentially stems from the fact that nobody's ever walked into a school and massacred people with anti-gun rhetoric.

Actually, no-one's ever walked into a school and massacred people with pro-gun rhetoric, either.

-jerdenn

This stuff stinks

I'm actually more on the gun control side of the fence, but this shows the real danger of these types of programs.

Other "nannyware" software in the past has been shown to block access to liberal political sites, now here's one that blocks conservative ones. Maybe this will wake up our elected leaders to the fact that mandating this type of software for libraries and such is bad idea.

I can see parents going to the software store in the future, asking for web filter software and having the retail-droid ask, "Would you like a liberal version or a conservative one?"

Reminds me of a poem

"Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte."

Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
English Translation [remember.org]

Re:Quote I heard from somewhere....

"If you want assault rifles, join the army. We have lots of them" - General Clark (I think)

Here's another one along those lines:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State" - Heinrich Himmler

Blocking Software is bad for EVERYONE !!

I'm personally on favor of gun controls myself but I'M EVEM MORE IN FAVOR of freedom of speech and expression.

Whether you are "pro-gun" or in favor of controls doesn't matter a whit. Hopefully we can ALL agree that, though we may not always agree on each other's ideas, we need to work together to defend our means of expressing them.

Why this is a bad idea for Symantic

The NRA type sites have a tremendous amount of gun safety information. The bulk of the organization's activities aren't political but training - they have certified trainers all over the country that teach people how to use and store guns safely. So by restricting access to these kinds of sites (being able to find out when the next handgun safety class is being taught, etc.), it makes the installer base less safe.

And (heheheh) if Symantic custmers can't get information on gun safety, only non-Symantic customers will have gun safety.

NRA

The NRA is a great source for firearm education and are supporters of making sure that everyone who owns firearms knows what they're doing with them.

If they're going to block the NRA under weapons, they had better also block the DNR and any hunting group or association.

THIS IS NOT "DEFAULT"!

...in the sense you're using it. I've used Symantec products for years (including Internet Security 2001, 2002, and 2003), so I have some experience here.

Parental Controls are an OPTIONAL part of INSTALLATION! I've never even had it on my computer, which means it's not an issue for anyone who isn't already interested in censoring someone using the computer (kids, etc.). Anyone installing/using the Parental Controls is sure to go through the options (how else can you determine what will be censored?), so this isn't some hidden "default" tactic to fight the NRA. Most parents (you can bet they research this stuff) will want pornography, weapons-promoting sites, etc. blocked, so it makes sense to have them checked by default.

Additionally, the reason the "weapons" filter would block the NRA but not anti-gun sites is simply the reason it exists - it's what parents want blocked - weapons-promoting sites. Symantec isn't just pulling this out of a hat, they're catering to the demands of consumers. This isn't censorship, it's not politically-motivated, and it's not an anti-gun statement by Symantec - it's economics and it's not being foisted on anyone.

Re:THIS IS NOT "DEFAULT"!

Parental Controls are tailored to what parents want - never forget that. The knee-jerk response is that of the parents, and Symantec's research simply picked up on it. Whether something is good or bad for children isn't the issue - what parent's don't want their kids seeing is what counts (whether they're basing it on knee-jerk assumptions or not).

Symantec makes poor judgment calls

They've violated a humour writer's copyright [http://www.jokeaday.com], and now this. They have no sense of right and wrong. You remember that FOX show Brimstone where a condemned dead cop was charged with hunting down escaped demons? Well Symantec is that cop, from HELL, chasing other's demons. They are no better than what they hunt down.

Thread summed up. (Top Ten List)

1. Lots of posts saying that Symantec is a private corp and can do what they want.
2. A Few retorts saying that even though Symantec is private, their software is being used in libraries, thereby censoring or applying their views to government funded institutions that are supposed to be neutral.
3. Huge flamewar about how gun control is good or bad.
4. People bitching about the ACLU and whether or not it will defend second ammendment rights and if it's a second ammendment issue or a first ammendement issue.
5. Nobody talking about how they could use a gun to go hunting and get food.
6. I hate Sementec / I love Symantec flamewar, what's the best firewall?.
7. Conservative Bashing / Liberal Bashing / George Bush = Adolf Hitler posts.
8. Are you still reading this list?
9. A LOT of posts about how the US sucks and the Euros and Japanese are doing everyting right with guns, crime, patents, and any other government regulation issues.
10. I have no sig, so I thought I'd make number 10 some kind of question on how to make a recursive post sig. How would it be done?

Why is anyone surprised?

Listen - this is what happens when we ask someone else to make decisions for us.

If you are a parent, you have 3 choices:

1) Sit down with your child and explain what sites are acceptabe and which are not. Then either monitor their activity or trust them.

2) Assign the responsibilty of deciding which sites are acceptable by purchasing and using filtering software. Just remember that you are not going to agree 100% with the decisions made by any of these software makers as to which content is appropriate and which is not.

3) allow unfiltered, unmonitored access to the internet.

Just my 2 cents

The real problem - lazy parents.

Certainly there are large groups of parents who would like to block out all websites related to guns and gun rights. I would imagine there is also a large group of parents who would like to do the exact opposite. This is lazy parenting.

If you really are pro gun-control you should be able to educate your children as to why you believe what you believe and respond to their questions. If your kid reads a pro gun site and has questions about the 2nd amendment that is the perfect opportunity for you to explain your views.

If you really are pro gun-rights you should be able to educate your children as to why you believe what you believe and respond to their questions. If your kid reads a pro gun control site and has questions about the 2nd amendment that is the perfect opportunity for you to explain your views.

The availibility of information (or misinformation) and viewpoints on the web is supposed to make us think about and challenge our beliefs. If you don't want your children to challenge your beliefs and think for themselves what kind of parents are you?

CIPA Compliance

You know, it's stuff like this that constantly reminds me of how much more politically tuned I need to be. I'm a news junkie, but that usually means watching a lot of mainstream media and not keeping up with bills going through congress nearly as much as I should.

For some silly reason, I'm not even sure I've ever heard of CIPA (the Children's Internet Protection Act), even though it's been overturned and taken to the Supreme Court and upheld. It's obviously not very newsworthy, or I just wasn't paying attention.

Something unusual about this law is that you can read it in a single sitting. It's simple and short. I'll share with you what I learned in about a half hour, just in case you didn't know about it either. You're aware of the Universal Service Fee on your phone bill, of course. Well that goes into an FCC fund that enables discounts on phone lines and internet access to eligible schools and libraries. Well, this law threatened to take that assistance away (and, in my interpretation, threatened to force schools and libraries to pay back all money they had ever received from the Universal Service Program) if they don't install some sort of software to filter material deemed harmful to minors.

That's essentially it, although the law goes on to say that the federal government won't establish guidelines about what to filter and won't approve or dissapprove any local guidelines. That's certainly a good thing. But I was impressed by how incredibly short and sweet the law is. But I still found myself disagreeing with it, for the same reason that the law was challenged in court, on the grounds that filtering is an imperfect science and that these measures would block genuinely useful information, which is, of course, protected by the First Ammendment, from reaching users in schools and libraries.

Now then, it didn't take long in my Google searching to find ads from all sort of companies, touting "CIPA Compliance" in their software. Ha! Well that's not very hard, considering the government specified only one requirement with which to comply... the software must be capable of filtering. Even a simple web proxy that allows the administrator to enter URLs one at a time of websites that are "deemed to be harmful to children" is complaint with CIPA. And, of course, this was a great opportunity for the software sales snakes of America to capitalize on a new law requiring their software. So you think this software is cheap? Ha! Guess again. When the government makes a law requiring something to be bought, that something goes up in price.

Sheesh.

Oh, and the original topic.... about filtering NRA stuff and not anti-gun stuff. Yeah, I completely agree. The NRA, as largely a political organization, should absolutely not be filtered. There's nothing there at all harmful to children. The NRA and its members are the very most responsible advocates of gun ownership you will ever run across.

RP

Re:What a shame...

Historically you may have earned the right to carry a gun, but if you feel this has made the US a safer place to live and have children, you might find it interesting to learn that in the US more children are killed by gunfire than in any other western country. In fact, the amount of people killed by gunfire (%) compares favorably to a country in war.

That's pure propaganda. Here are some facts from Guy Smith

Myth: 13 children are killed each day by guns

Fact: Adults included - This "statistic" includes "children" up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source. Since most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, these numbers include adult gang members dying during criminal activity (71) (incidentally, 'child' is defined by Webster as a person between birth and puberty, typically 13-14 years).

Fact: Criminals are included - 70% of these deaths are adults, age 17-20, involved in gang warfare. Half of the juveniles killed are involved in gang activity at the time of their deaths, often involved in drug related firefights.

Fact: Suicides and criminals included - These numbers include criminal activities and suicides.(72) As suicides make up more than 1/2 of all gun deaths, the number drops even further, to about 1.3 children a day. (73)

When you do all the subtraction, the result is less than one child per day

Fact: The federal government lists the total firearm related deaths for children were 612, or 1.7 per day, in 1998. 154 were suicides (74)

Fact: Over 13 teenagers die every day in automobiles, seven behind the wheel. (75)

Fact: Four children die each day in the U.S. from parental neglect and abuse. (76)

Fact: For contrast: 1,917 children die each day from malaria (77) and 15 men, women, and children per day are murdered by a convicted felon in government supervised parole/probation programs. (78)

71 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1997
72 National Center for Health Statistics, "Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries", 1997
73 Validated using Center for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics Report - Deaths: Final Data for 1998, July 24, 2000, table 8, page 26
74 CDC WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1981-1998
75 U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 2001
76 National Center on Child Abuse Prevention, 1998 Annual Survey
77 Fact Sheet No 178, U.N. World Health Organization, 1998
78 1998 US Bureau of Justice Statistics

A note about suicides, countries make handguns illegal experience no change in suicide rates... people simply find other ways to kill themselves.

I've lived in the USA all of my life and been all over the country. I've never witnessed a shooting, intentional or accidental. I've never known anyone who was killed by a gun. I do have a single aquaintance that was shot in the face with a .22 revolver during a car-jacking, years before I met him, but he was lucky and barely even has a scar.

Here are some more facts.

Myth: Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem

Fact: Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S. (122) For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:

• Twice as likely to suffocate on a swallowed object
• Seven times more likely to be poisoned
• 10 times more likely to die falling
• And 31 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

Fact: In 1996, there were only 21 accidental gun deaths for children under age 15. About twice as many children under the age of ten die from drowning in bathtubs. (123)

Fact: In 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm-related accidental deaths from ages 0-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and

Also Pro-Drugs and Anti-Drugs sites..

I also thing the sam thing goes for Pro and Anti-Drugs sites .. Pro-Drugs sites are blocked but the Anti-Drug sites not..

Anyone have an objection to that ?

Same goes for Hacking Anti-Hacking, Porn & Fight-Porn sites ..

Why shouldn't Pro-Gun sites be classed as such ??

A non-US view

It's not the guns that are the problem, it's the Americans. Before the flames begin, we in the UK have pretty much the same Anglo-Saxon mentality (short tempers, we always think we're right, our home is our castle etc) which is why we're not allowed to carry guns - something that dates from WWI, if I remember correctly, although it's been (fairly pointlessly) tightened to include most sports shooting since the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, which were committed with legally held guns.

Conversely, the Swiss are armed to the teeth and gun violence there is very rare. It's just that Anglo-Saxons will fight with whatever they've got - fists, knives or firearms - over pretty much any disagreement, but your average European will just make a rude gesture and forget about it.

I'm always amazed by how many posts gun stories attract on Slashdot though!

Re:NRA deserves a little hubris

What do you actually know about the NRA, Alex?

NRA certified instructors train the police - the NRA has been emphasising safe gun use and responsible ownership for more than a century - the NRA has pushed for laws making the use of a firearm in a crime a mandatory additional sentence - which of these do you disagree with?

Most recently, the NRA is working to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, to deter the criminals (who, by the way, are already carrying concealed weapons, illegally). This has reduced crime in every one of the 45 states which allow it. Are you perhaps against that?

What, specifically, that the NRA does, are you against, Alex?