If they don't show the advertisement they should not broadcast shows with guns being pointed at people. I do not have to watch a advertisement, I can change channel and them come back or do a picture in a picture switch. Which Time Warner provides with their cable service. What did political correctness do to our economy passing out loans to people that could not pay, because "everybody should have the American dream of owning a home". It hurt the entire country and still is hurting it. Don't let big Corporation influence our free will. If we do they will be ruling us as they see fit, we will be giving away our privilege to be a free thinking individual. I would drop there service, however they are a monopoly in my area. They love the control.
TWC's discrimatory actions ARE illegal. I'm surprised (I shouldn't be) at the double standard. If TWC is going to drop gun business advertisements, then, all the TV shows they air have got to go too. I will not be renewing my contract with Time Warner Cable. There are other ways and businesses where I can receive service.
It doesn't really matter if they run commercials or not for guns - LOOK, they removed commercials promoting cigaretes and alcohol but people still smoke and drink, but will they continue to run movies and TV show where there is a lot of violence. Like the NRA states - the president is a hyporite to have protection for his children in school but doesn't want others to have that protection - so is the cable company for not having commercials for guns but yet show movies of violence.
I'm not really big on guns but if you're going to ban ads showing weapons the ban it all (including all Movies & TV shows)
Have you not noticed the Corona, Budweiser, Michelob and other beer commercials?
As a veteran I am aware that there is is only one purpose for an assault rifle, its not for target practice, its not for hunting, and hopefully its not for home invasion, it is to kill and/or mame your enemy. The power behind such a projectile will tear through an interior wall with enough force to kill someone in another room. For Gods sake why do we need to sell the banana clips too for these weapons.
I have no problem with anyone owning a hunting rifle or shotgun to be used for hunting, taget practice, or home invasion.
I hear the arguement all the time that it is our 2nd admendment right to bear arms. Think back into the times when the constitution was written, if we want to take it litterally, how many different types of weapons were available? How many different types are available now? If we do not stop this love affair with weaponry soon people will be wanting RPG's, 50 calibers, and a M60. Hey they are great to clear a beaver dams are house demolision. In all seriousness no one want to take away our right to bear arms, just the weapons of war.
The 5.56/.223 caliber round in common use (55gr ball ammo) in fact penetrates LESS than a common 9mm handgun round inside a house or other structure. This is a FACT and if you actually had any sort of real experience with these weapons you would know this.
Ergo, you're not telling the truth
This is why, incidentally, SWAT and other police teams have gone to these weapons, in addition to the fact that it is quite common for drugged-up suspects to absorb several shots and keep coming. The common shotgun (that used to be the standard-issue police long-gun) is MUCH more dangerous in a confined space; a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot (or worse, a slug) is FAR more likely to overpenetrate and injure or kill someone unintentionally beyond a wall or door (or for that matter in the next building!) than a 5.56/.223 weapon is.
Never mind the common AR-15 is NOT identical to the M4 issued to the military. The AR-15 is semi-automatic exactly as is the Ruger "ranch rifle" (which also fires the same cartridge); indeed, they are functionally identical weapons that only APPEAR different.
And both are safer in terms of overpenetration risk than a common 12ga shotgun.
Military weapons are typically select-fire -- that is, they can fire more than one cartridge with one press of the trigger (aka "machine guns".) Such weapons have been restricted since the 1934 NFA although under certain circumstances can be legally acquired.
You're obviously not a veteran as if you were you would know what a standard-issue military arm is, and that what's sold in the civilian market is NOT a "weapon of war."
I personally own several so-called assault rifles (a semi-auto is. NOT an assault rifle).
I use mine for target practice (with my children even - are they now evil?).
I have also enjoyed wild hog taken with a "so called" assault rifle.
The round that 95% of these "assault" rifles are chambered in (5.56/.223) is a relatively week rifle round and does make for a good home defense round due to it's likelihood to fragment or tumble, because that results in less penetration than most rounds.
So, Mr. "Veteran", before you speak out in a manner inconsistent with the oath you took to defend the Constitution, get your information correct. And yes, I know the oath well. I took it as part of my service to this country.
In the same thread, think back to the times when the Consitution was written. There was no internet or TV back then. In your line of reasoning then we shouldn't have the First Amendment Protections extended to these types of mediums, right?
Just like speech is covered to include any types of medium, including 21st century ones like internet, bearing arms is also extended to arms that are made right now. And since the 2nd Amendment was incorporated into the Bill of Rights specifically to throw off a tyrannical government, the least we the people should have is the same type of weaponry that the government has in its possession to keep them in line.
Response to back to when the amendment was written. The government had the same type of weapons as the people, the 2nd amendment was written to keep a government from enforcing their will on the people plain and simple. The government has assault weapons so should the people of sound mind. This is the only thing that keeps the government from imposing their will on the Republic taking the free will of the people away.
Reason to own an assault weapon without the government in consideration. You must be young, during the L.A. riots the only stores that were not burnt down were owners that had the show of force to protect their property. I remember the TV showing the owners with their high capacity magazine weapons with their store in tacked. The Police are not here to protect "you" they are here to protect the masses. You are responsible for you safety during civil unrest. What would you do if your home was attacked by looters, call 911 want get there in time, get your 6 shooter out. Hope you are a perfect shot and there is not more than 6 looters if you are a perfect shot.
I somewhat doubt you are a veteran. If you were, you would understand that the Second Amendment goes far past home defense. It was put in place to allow citizens to ward off oppressive government. Any law-abiding citizen should be able to own any type firearm he wants, including military style. Even these would not be very effective against a well-armed military force, but semi-automatic AK with a 30 round magazine or a 100 round drum on an SKS is a lot better than a hunting or plinking rifle. Not many are going to use a high-powered rifle for home defense. That's what handguns with fragmentation ammo is for, so put your mind at ease.
I agree. This guy is either a fake or he's betrayed his oath to protect the Constitution. And this is coming from a REAL vet.
They are the worst kind of hypocrite, by their rating system you don't know every time one of the cop shows will bring out the big guns. This is politically correct censorship, plain and simple. Of course they will not stop showing Hollywood's crap. Time Warner is known for being the crappiest cable provider so everyone should dump their cable programming and start meeting your neighbors again. Run for state and local office and set penalties for businesses that operate like they do. As a nation we survived for hundreds of years without cable and internet and we were a better nation without them!!!
infringement: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege
With all the violence they show every day, they want to ban a picture of a gun??? ARE YOU CRAZY?? I am changing to satellite tomorrow! Good by TW!
I will accept this as a valid policy if Time Warner Cable stops showing movies with semi-automatic weapons and guns pointed at people.
Just do not ban gun add ban all new gun sales
What a crock!
It is outrageous that TWC is taking this direction. They are banning advertising of a legal product. Will they ban car ads next? They are after all inherently dangerous, 3500(+-) pound chunks of steel and plastic hurtling down the highway, some capable of speeds well over 100 miles per hour.
Someone with a few drinks in them can turn these into mobile death traps. Maybe they should ban advertising for them as well!!
I have a question to all automatic gun owners. If you continue to say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", than I would guess that if someone who kills innocent people while driving, you would also say that the car killed those innocent people, not the driver. Or lets take it a little farther, shall we!!!!
If someone kills a group of innocent people with a bomb, then it was the bomb who killed the people not the person wearing the bomb or detonating the bomb.
One last statement.
The Constitutional amendment that you murderers hide behind was written when weapons were single shot weapons not something that would fire 50 shots in 10 seconds. It was written so men could come to the aide of his country or his family or his neighbor. It wasn't written so nuts could get their hands on weapons that could wipe out a whole elementary school.
Maybe if your family were wiped out by a nut with an automatic weapon then the next time you go deer hunting with a 60 or 40 round clip and 5 more in your pack you might just ask yourself.
Why did I need sooooooo many shots just to bring down that one defensless deer?
You realize your completely backwards with your analogies, right? PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. They often use objects to help- guns, cars, bombs, etc. It is the PERSON who is responsible for the crime, not the OBJECT.
Are we clear now?
So, in your quest to show logic, you are blaming the cars for a drunk drivers actions and implying we sbould ban cars?????
OK, the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is in no way equivalent to "people don't kill people, cars kill people" (which is a paraphrased version of what you posted). Your argument has absolutely no logic to it whatsoever.
Also, since you posted that the 2nd Amendment was only written to apply to the weapons of time, does that mean that Freedom of Speech and Press also only apply to technology of the time? Shouldn't it only apply to quills, parchment, and hand printing presses? After all, the framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated the internet, smart phones or cable TV. Right?
For the last damn time! Automatic weapons were not used in these shooting....SMH...
The 2nd Ammendment was written to protect us from anyone whom may try to take away our freedom or cause you bodily harm! With that said, when they come to take yours I pray for your sake you have a big enough pile of rocks and maybe a stick ot two!!!!
It is funny how clueless people can get whipped into a frenzy by the media, without even realizing they don't know WTF they are talking about.
You do realize that it is next to impossible for a civilian to own an AUTOMATIC weapon in this country? Please learn the terminology, and then you'll begin to see that you can put the word assault in front of anything (anything can be used as a weapon, given determination)!
Once you understand that - you'll begin to see that folks like you are getting whipped into a frenzy over nothing more than a word.
WHAT?! You need to make sure you take your meds today.
Actually, the person driving the car is responsible for controlling that vehicle in a safe manner. If someone detonates a bomb, that person is responsible. You need to be put away somewhere before you multiply.
TWC's reason for banning the gun shop's commercials but not the programming with guns is beyond asinine. So let me get this straight: people can only select programs but can't change the channel when a commercial that is offensive to them comes on? Really? I do it ALL the time!
TWC has really stepped in it this time. TWC since you have become The Censor, maybe you should censor some of the crude, vulgar inappropriate programming you show. If the gun shop is paying for air time, you should run it. Anyone who doesn't want to watch a commercial for a gun shop (or any other commercial) can simply pick up the remote & click!
Twc is trying to be politically correct and is out of touch with the people in our region. It is one of the reasons why I discontinued the use of TWC recently.
Time Warner has every right not to run ads it feels are not in keeping with it's policies. Every cable provider should take note of their action. It's about time everybody recognized that everybody is to blame for what happens in our society. Television, movies and yes even VIDEO games have an effect on everybody. It's time we all put our feet down and say enough already. BRAVO to Time Warner.
Wasn't it Time Warner that had the commercial that included Modern Warfare (the video game) characters carrying guns. Also, didn't a grenade get thrown and exploded almost in the actor's lap?
You are correct... they have a right to ban ads if they so choose. We also have a right to pick another provider if we choose. At least it used to be a free country.
To be fair, If they are going to ban the commercials they should take all movies off that use semi-automatic weapons.