- Active Posts:
- 167 (0.06 per day)
- Most Active In:
- General Paintball Discussions (50 posts)
- 24-May 07
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Aug 07 2009 10:09 AM
- Member Title:
- "Crazy Eyes"
- 37 years old
- March 3, 1977
- MD/DC area
- Website URL:
- Brigade Name:
Posts I've Made
15 June 2009 - 07:37 AMOkay lets clear a few things up. When the Declaration of independence was signed, the first words were, verbatim, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Meaning all men are equal, not all American men, not all British men, Not all Chinese men, but ALL men.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights was meant to recognize the rights of all men. All men have protection from Congress making no laws abridging free speech, all men have the right To bear arms to keep A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,, etc. whether that right is suppressed by their govt. or not. That is what it mean. It is also meant to protect the rights of the US citizenry.
Now, when we capture enemy combatants, we have traditionally followed Geneva Conventions on POWs. This was agreed upon by delegations from many nations. I think in the case of enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, we should follow the set precedent and continue following Geneva conventions. They are not American citizens (and in fact harbor the deepest hatred for them), and their own nation refuses to take them back. Like it or not, we are at war with them. Follow the rules of war. If you will not follow that portion of the Geneva convention, then you deny that this is in fact a war. In that case, also forgo the other conventions. Arm our soldiers with expanding hollowpoints, they're more effective against targets. This isn't a war right? They don't get to pick and chose which rules suit them and change the rest. Pick one rule set and follow it.
You left out a few key words. Fixed.
You don't have blanket free speech. Try telling the TSA agent you have a bomb in your suitcase (or better yet, in your Pure Energy 68/4500 tank with the radioactive symbol on it) or yelling "fire!" in a theater, or filling a false police report. You're only protected against federal laws regarding free speech. Except when the FCC comes down on you for obscene speech.
I think the FCC's obscenity regulations violate the 1st amendment, but congress doesn't.
Back to the topic. I agree with alot of people here. I think Bush's policies on the matter were too extreme in one direction, but Obama's are too extreme in the other. There has to be some middle ground.
15 June 2009 - 02:34 AMI liked one of the comments I read somewhere else (credit to Humbolt on ProPaintball): "In order to maintain a trademark, you must govern the use of that trademark – not doing so gives the appearance that you have deserted the trademark and allows for other companies to make such claims. Use it or loose it, so to say. H&K is simply looking to the future: they don’t want one of their true competitors such as Colt or Walther to make an MP5 clone and show paintball markers as evidence that the trademark is not being enforced."
The generally accepted time is 3 years. If a company hasn't defended their trademark against an infringement for that long, it's considered abandoned.
15 June 2009 - 02:20 AMOut of curiosity, how well have your Magnums held up so far? I ask because I'm considering picking up a pair and I've heard reports of them literally disinagrating after a few months of wear.
I've never heard that before. I don' use mine for paintball anymore, but I've had my Magnums for almost 6 years now and I don't think I'll need to replace them anytime soon.
14 June 2009 - 09:44 AMI just want to point out that Trademarks can cover the "Look and feel" of an item. Lego has tried to sue plastic brick toy makers because they replicate the "look and feel" of Lego bricks.
Judging by the pics from the 1st post, the BT marker replicates the Look and Feel of the HK. I'm sure BT will lose on that point alone.
If I made an 8-bit cartridge video game console that looks EXACTLY like a PS3, don't you think they'd sue because it looks identical, even thought it does a similar but not identical function?
It's the same thing. They copied the Look and Feel, even thought they do similar, but not identical things.
Info about Lego: http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2005/leg...-plastic-bricks
Info about Look and Feel: http://18.104.22.168/search?q=cache:YQskpa...lient=firefox-a
QuoteThe protection afforded to trademarks has been expanded to include combinations of letters or numbers (“Chanel No. 5” or “A1” steak sauce), the headstock shape of a guitar, color (pink insulation), and the general “look and feel” of a product. The “look and feel” is protected as “trade dress,” but the considerations and tests for infringement are the same as for trademarks.
03 June 2009 - 12:57 PMThe "how'd that get there" would be a bruise in the right armpit. Found it when I got into the shower. After I was done cleaning I checked my shirt, no sign of a break and I don't recall taking a pit hit.
Same thing happened to me, but on the left. I wear a camo top with an Under Armor shirt underneath, but it still somehow left a mark and I don't remember getting shot there, twice.
Ciderbarrel hasn't added any friends yet.