Dee:

"Dee Flint" wrote in message Still it is an
important distinction that it is in the Declaration of
Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to
understand
the differences in their purposes.


Yes indeed. There are two (in fact more) documents protecting our
rights and agreeing people are the true power, and NOT governments.

The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies
wished
to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit
sympathy and


Yes, and they did a very fine job of it. Indeed, I have not seen many
papers which make humanity the reason for its arguments, and individual
rights in particular. Some now wish to find reasons to weaken these
premises and arguments, strange how societies can never rid themselves
of fools destined to repeat the same mistakes ...

On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were
actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is
inappropriate


Absolutely NOT, while kings, rulers, dictators, powerful corporations,
the wealthy, and the mentally challenged might confuse rights with
rhetoric, those whose ancestral line runs back to these time, and the
traditions carried forth to this time have no such confusions. There is
no rhetoric in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is not
rhetoric in "God given rights." There is no rhetoric in being secure in
person and property. You give me nightmares in the type of world you
would allow to come. I only hope you never run for office, even dog
catcher would worry me in your case! (however, you are probably a nice
person)

Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included
in the
Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up
serial killers.


Preposterous, that is like arguing liberty = murder. We all have
absolute liberty, granted by our creator, we govern ourselfs in its use.
The people have that right, the government does not, unless it serves
as only a tool of the people in doing so. There is much confusion here,
laws do NOT give us rights and/or liberty, they only serve to remove or
control those. Before we apply law, we are only governed by our
creator, and he has given us all free will.

Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum


We all also have unlimited rights to the pursuit of happiness, limits on
those pursuits are simply when they deprive another of exercising their
rights to such pursuits. A child learns this early in school, a finer
tutoring includes sharing ... if we deny others what we have,
especially though little tests and requirements as a policy of picking
and choosing "who we want to play with", we are NOT maintaining order,
we are screwing people, plain and simple, in fact only a simple person
would have difficultly seeing through that rubbish.

No Dee, you are simply another, "The sky is falling!", decrier. No Dee,
the sky is not falling, some are simply made a prisoner to their own
fears, fears which lead them into depriving other Americans of their
rights--in so doing, the "champions of justice" end up becoming the evil
which controls, deprives, and punishes people who do not think as they
do. These groups have come and gone through our history.

Open your eyes, todays world is much different than the one which you
were born into. Today you can call anywhere in the world from anywhere,
if you are even in most remote areas a cell phone allows you such
access; if that fails, there are satellite phone. Today, the internet
will let you converse to anyone anywhere in the world, allow you to view
and access materials anywhere in the world or share any such materials
to anyone, anywhere in the world.

In this world, amature radio tries to keep itself isolated as an island,
a religious club of fanatic devotes with far too many decrying the sky
is falling ... the sky is not falling ... radio is dying.

The good news is, much awaits amateur radio's future from its' ashes.
From those ashes will spring forth a service which will bear little
resemblance to the old, antique and outdated practices of the past.

It is an exciting time to be alive ...

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
wrote:

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Here's another, somewhat similar view:

An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by
a process that includes passing the required examinations *and*

Whoa! Let's be accurate! Radio frequencies are a "natural resource",
granted us by our creator and the laws of physics he/she/it/"the-aliens"
constructed.

I agree!

The problem is, they are a limited resource, to be shared among a lot
of people.

For example, if each of us 300,000,000 Americans were to ignore the
other six billion humans on earth, and divide up the HF spectrum
equally, how much would we each get to call our own?
Less than a tenth of a Hertz on HF. Even if we allow time separation,
so that 100 Americans share the same allocation, that's less than 10 Hz
each.

Why I will allow a gov't agency to manage these in a manner
which is ultimately governed by "the people", I will not support laws, rules
or regulations which run contrary to such ... or in short, the people
control the use of the air waves, and the air waves are made available to
the people in a very logical method.

Agreed - but who determines what the logical method is? What you see in
radio regulations is a set of compromises among differing uses.

For example, I think there are some folks who would be happy to see
amateur radio eliminated, or reduced in power/spectrum/privileges so
much that it would effectively disappear. Those folks would rather see
the amateur bands used for something else, like broadcasting, BPL, etc.
To them, ham radio itself is illogical.

OTOH, we hams think that polluting the radio spectrum with BPL noise is
illogical. Yet we have to push and prod the regulators to understand
that simple idea.

btw, this "character" issue isn't just aimed at hams. It was originally
used against broadcasters.

The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and

The FCC can assume anything it wishes, but I insist it obeys the
constitution and the laws of the creator in doing so.

What does either say about the radio spectrum, and access to it?

Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right
might win out.

I don't believe there is any argument of merit which can be proposed which
would take radio frequencies from us, they are simply one of those
"inalienable rights" our creator has gifted upon the peoples of this earth.
I would quite openly question anyones sanity who claim differently.

Do you think each of us has the inalienable right to operate an
uncoordinated transmitter on, say, 90.9 MHz? I don't, and I don't think
you do either.

Think about why.

It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions.

I live in America, I grew up when the constitution was not "interpreted",
rather, we took it for granted our forefathers "said what they meant, and
meant what they said."

The Constitution has always been interpreted. That's one of the reasons
for the Supreme Court, and why it has struck down laws that
contradicted their interpretation of the Constitution. Not a new thing.

And one of the greatest wisdoms of those who wrote and ratified the
Constitution (near here, in Philadelphia, btw) was that it would not be
a static, unchangeable document, but rather one that would evolve and
develop over time. Yet at the same time, the amendment process was set
up to try to keep changes from happening on a whim.

A pretty ingenious system, all told.

You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree.

I am pleased we agree on the above, I like to live in a safe country,
composed of safe states, harboring safe cities/towns, which are conductive
to safe neighborhoods ...

Exactly. And that safety means reasonable regulations, laws, and other
measures to ensure order.

At the same time, we must be careful that we do not try to obtain
"safety" at the price of our freedoms.

Warmest regards,
JS

Same to you, "John"


73 de Jim, N2EY

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct

And you are Quitefine.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Dee:

"Dee Flint" wrote in message Still it is an
important distinction that it is in the Declaration of
Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to
understand
the differences in their purposes.


Yes indeed. There are two (in fact more) documents protecting our rights
and agreeing people are the true power, and NOT governments.

The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies
wished
to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit
sympathy and


Yes, and they did a very fine job of it. Indeed, I have not seen many
papers which make humanity the reason for its arguments, and individual
rights in particular. Some now wish to find reasons to weaken these
premises and arguments, strange how societies can never rid themselves of
fools destined to repeat the same mistakes ...

On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were
actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is
inappropriate


Absolutely NOT, while kings, rulers, dictators, powerful corporations, the
wealthy, and the mentally challenged might confuse rights with rhetoric,
those whose ancestral line runs back to these time, and the traditions
carried forth to this time have no such confusions. There is no rhetoric
in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is not rhetoric in
"God given rights." There is no rhetoric in being secure in person and
property. You give me nightmares in the type of world you would allow to
come. I only hope you never run for office, even dog catcher would worry
me in your case! (however, you are probably a nice person)

Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included
in the
Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up
serial killers.


Preposterous, that is like arguing liberty = murder. We all have absolute
liberty, granted by our creator, we govern ourselfs in its use. The people
have that right, the government does not, unless it serves as only a tool
of the people in doing so. There is much confusion here, laws do NOT give
us rights and/or liberty, they only serve to remove or control those.
Before we apply law, we are only governed by our creator, and he has given
us all free will.


No I'm saying that all our rights do have limits and that it is for a very
good reason. If our rights were absolute, they would have no limits and we
could indeed kill each other to attempt to insure those rights. Society has
decided (and rightly so) that doesn't work too well for the survival of
society. The moment society decides that some rules are required to make
that society work, then our rights are limited.

Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum


We all also have unlimited rights to the pursuit of happiness, limits on
those pursuits are simply when they deprive another of exercising their
rights to such pursuits. A child learns this early in school, a finer
tutoring includes sharing ... if we deny others what we have, especially
though little tests and requirements as a policy of picking and choosing
"who we want to play with", we are NOT maintaining order, we are screwing
people, plain and simple, in fact only a simple person would have
difficultly seeing through that rubbish.

Again if it were an absolute right, one could pursue that at the expense of
others. Again society has decided that doesn't work too well and of
necessity puts some limits on it. Then it becomes a matter of opinion
whether those limits are appropriate.

It so happens that I think code is a basic of radio and should be required
at a basic level. I do not consider it a filter, right of passage or other
such nonsense.


No Dee, you are simply another, "The sky is falling!", decrier. No Dee,
the sky is not falling, some are simply made a prisoner to their own
fears, fears which lead them into depriving other Americans of their
rights--in so doing, the "champions of justice" end up becoming the evil
which controls, deprives, and punishes people who do not think as they do.
These groups have come and gone through our history.


I haven't predicted any major catastrophe so I think you've tagged the wrong
person with your Chicken Little reference. I have discussed what others
seem to fear but I do not fear it.

Open your eyes, todays world is much different than the one which you were
born into. Today you can call anywhere in the world from anywhere, if you
are even in most remote areas a cell phone allows you such access; if that
fails, there are satellite phone. Today, the internet will let you
converse to anyone anywhere in the world, allow you to view and access
materials anywhere in the world or share any such materials to anyone,
anywhere in the world.


That is irrelevant to amateur radio.

In this world, amature radio tries to keep itself isolated as an island, a
religious club of fanatic devotes with far too many decrying the sky is
falling ... the sky is not falling ... radio is dying.


Again, I'm not the one worried about it. I see people every month joining
our ranks. If you look at the statistics, it is quite obvious that amateur
radio is not dying. It has its ups and downs but the numbers are quite
robust.

The good news is, much awaits amateur radio's future from its' ashes. From
those ashes will spring forth a service which will bear little resemblance
to the old, antique and outdated practices of the past.


Since it's not dying, there won't be any ashes. I've seen the proposals so
far and there is nothing exciting in them. Digital voice? Ho-hum, I've got
that on my cell phone. And it can be implemented any time hams want to spend
money on new equipment New digital modes? Sure but they're just new
flavors of the same old thing. Hooking to the internet? Already been done
and that's not terribly exciting either. Once upon a time, radio led
technology (i.e. linked repeater systems with phone patches pre-date cell
phones). Now it doesn't and there is nothing exciting in emulating
commercial implementations in amateur radio.

Basically, radio is a mature field. As with any mature field, improvements
can be made but that's about it.

The excitement comes in the personal growth and development and in helping
others to discover those for themselves.

Dee, N8UZE

Radiosrfun wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
John Smith wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...
The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that
any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to
the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted
us
by our creator.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Here's another, somewhat similar view:

An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by
a process that includes passing the required examinations *and*
demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and
regulations.

The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and
until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is
considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy.

Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof.
License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was
revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still
trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did
not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked.

I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work
against
felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole.

Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right
might win out.

Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license
who
had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk
driving--manslaughter--etc.

Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put
it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's
behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has
problems in those areas.

And note again that the revocations are not automatic.

This type of logic, once again, demonstrates
why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio.

It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions.

Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the
hobby
aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished!

Maybe.

It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among
licensed radio
amateurs compared to the general population.

Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish
them
after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse,
dead!)

You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I "suppose" they (the FCC) could consider a way of reinstating said
license - much like any State Bureau of Motor Vehicles would for a person
found DUI/etc - if proper conditions were placed into effect. I doubt that
will ever happen.

Actually, those conditions are already in place.

The person who had his license revoked could, after getting out of
prison, apply for a new license and take the test over again. The
application asks if the person has ever had a license revoked, so the
person could give the details, and then say that s/he'd reformed and
would follow the rules.

That revocation doesn't mean the person can never ever have a license.

Quite frankly, I don't see what "CB/Ham/2 way" radio in general - has to do
with a "Felon" - UNLESS they were used in the commission of said crimes -
which by the way - carries additional penalties.

I mean - if a person has it in them to kill someone - rob a bank, etc.....
radio "didn't" drive them to it - unless maybe they're looking for cash to
build a bigger station, etc. That is laughable. People commit crimes for
various reasons. Money, Jealousy, definate Mental impairment which breeds
anti-social behaviour - and so on. Was Hitler a "ham"? Probably not. Was
Osama Bin Laden or any of his ass kissing henchmen? Probably not! I am
willing to bet - the majority of criminals have had NO or very little
exposure to radio - with exception of maybe CB and FRS - since they're so
prevalent and easily used and acquired. But even at that - the
aforementioned issues are mainly at fault and I'm sorry - I fail to see
where "Radio" has anything to do with it.

The point isn't "Radio" - it's trustworthiness. At least that's FCC's
point of view.

If a person has it in them to commit a serious crime, why should we
trust that they will follow FCC radio regulations? That's FCC's point
of view.

I will agree with the one poster - had anyone "convicted" of a crime who
"was" into Ham - been more involved in the hobby, it "may" have prevented
said crimes. FWIW - crimes differ from state to state as to what may be
considered as a "felony". What may be a felony in one state, may not be in
yet another.
Then again - some people - regardless if it is "ham" radio, "CB", pick up
games of sports, etc. - lose their cool so very easily - and BAM - a crime
is committed. People have died at youth sports games when the "parents" went
nuts and attacked others. You can't blame the "Youth" sports for those
deaths - anymore than you can Ham radio for a crime.

Good point!

People are just going
bonkers more and more now days and they use any little excuse to try to
justify their cause.

I don't know if people are really "just going bonkers" nowadays, or if
we are simply hearing about it more.

Not only "Ham", but CB and FRS as well, AND even on a Police channel on the
scanner - a couple times - I've heard people argue to the point of telling
others - they were going to kiss their ass. Yes, I've heard COPS get into it
on the radio. Talk about "professionalism"! Yes, I've heard of fights on Ham
and CB where one person is "trying" to talk and another - instead of acting
like a gentleman - acts like an ass - and whalah - an argument ensues.
Instead of changing channels or letting the issue drop - they pursue it.
Some - yes - to the point of personally hunting the other down for an ass
kicking or murder. That is "rage" which was brought on - not by radio - but
by those who have issues dealing with others - who don't like to be crowded.
The radio was only a means of them asserting their behaviour publicly - and
finding a victim. Not much different than Road Rage.

Being mostly a CW operator, I've not heard anything like that on the
ham bands.

You can't pick "just" HAM RADIO out of the bunch - any hobby, sport,
activity, job, etc - can set people off.

Of course. And ultimately it is the person who is responsible.

Conducting research to see how many hams committed crimes - would be "less"
interesting than one which shows how many accidents were as a result of
using all radio modes while driving - be they Ham, CB, 2 way, etc. - AS
OPPOSED to CELL PHONE! I don't EVER recall seeing the states cracking down
on CBers or Hams - due to "irratic driving" as they are now - with Cells.

I think there's a basic difference with cell phones. With radio, it's
one-way, with a phone, it's two-way. A lot of mobile radio is a
roundtable-type discussion, where you spend only a small part of the
time talking. And you can put the mike down when not talking!

With the heavy use of Cell Phones, I'd be willing to bet that Ham radio "IF"
responsible for ANY crimes - is like maybe 1/1000th of a percent - compared
to cells - which are used for harassment, stalking, spying, etc.
"Maybe" - just "maybe" - I could go along to some very minor extent - but
for the most part - I DOUBT Ham is as responsible for crimes as this post
seems to suggest. IF there are any "psychologists/psychiatrists" out there
or "social workers" who read these, PLEASE DO - chime in. I'd love to see
your opinion as well.

Perhaps the biggest factor is simply popularity. There are less than a
million US hams, and of those, the number actively operating mobile is
a couple hundred thousand at most.

Compare that to the more than 100 million cell phones now in use....

It's not "ham radio", CB, vehicles, etc.......... it is SELF CONTROL - which
makes the difference.

Well said.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"John Smith" wrote in
:

"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with crime,

Homosexuality is a crime against humanity.

SC

"John Smith" wrote in
:

Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of
"clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am
guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining
confines when it comes to their rights.


Democrats do that all the time to try to come up with ways to push their
pro-homosexual, anti-morality, anti-America adgenda.

SC

wrote in message
ups.com...
Radiosrfun wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
John Smith wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...
The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the
type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder,
rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one
clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed
with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that
any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights
to
the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources
granted
us
by our creator.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Here's another, somewhat similar view:

An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by
a process that includes passing the required examinations *and*
demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and
regulations.

The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and
until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is
considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy.

Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof.
License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was
revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still
trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did
not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked.

I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work
against
felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole.

Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right
might win out.

Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones
license
who
had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony
drunk
driving--manslaughter--etc.

Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put
it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's
behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has
problems in those areas.

And note again that the revocations are not automatic.

This type of logic, once again, demonstrates
why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio.

It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions.

Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the
hobby
aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been
diminished!

Maybe.

It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among
licensed radio
amateurs compared to the general population.

Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish
them
after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or
worse,
dead!)

You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I "suppose" they (the FCC) could consider a way of reinstating said
license - much like any State Bureau of Motor Vehicles would for a person
found DUI/etc - if proper conditions were placed into effect. I doubt
that
will ever happen.

Actually, those conditions are already in place.

Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that - but then again, I've never been in
a spot to "test" that! After I read your reply - I recalled some statements
on various FCC forms regarding such.


The person who had his license revoked could, after getting out of
prison, apply for a new license and take the test over again. The
application asks if the person has ever had a license revoked, so the
person could give the details, and then say that s/he'd reformed and
would follow the rules.

That revocation doesn't mean the person can never ever have a license.

Quite frankly, I don't see what "CB/Ham/2 way" radio in general - has to
do
with a "Felon" - UNLESS they were used in the commission of said crimes -
which by the way - carries additional penalties.

I mean - if a person has it in them to kill someone - rob a bank,
etc.....
radio "didn't" drive them to it - unless maybe they're looking for cash
to
build a bigger station, etc. That is laughable. People commit crimes for
various reasons. Money, Jealousy, definate Mental impairment which breeds
anti-social behaviour - and so on. Was Hitler a "ham"? Probably not. Was
Osama Bin Laden or any of his ass kissing henchmen? Probably not! I am
willing to bet - the majority of criminals have had NO or very little
exposure to radio - with exception of maybe CB and FRS - since they're so
prevalent and easily used and acquired. But even at that - the
aforementioned issues are mainly at fault and I'm sorry - I fail to see
where "Radio" has anything to do with it.

The point isn't "Radio" - it's trustworthiness. At least that's FCC's
point of view.


I got your point - but here is what "I" was replying to - as was stated
above - in a past post......... in this thread:

It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among
licensed radio
amateurs compared to the general population.




If a person has it in them to commit a serious crime, why should we
trust that they will follow FCC radio regulations? That's FCC's point
of view.

I will agree with the one poster - had anyone "convicted" of a crime who
"was" into Ham - been more involved in the hobby, it "may" have prevented
said crimes. FWIW - crimes differ from state to state as to what may be
considered as a "felony". What may be a felony in one state, may not be
in
yet another.
Then again - some people - regardless if it is "ham" radio, "CB", pick up
games of sports, etc. - lose their cool so very easily - and BAM - a
crime
is committed. People have died at youth sports games when the "parents"
went
nuts and attacked others. You can't blame the "Youth" sports for those
deaths - anymore than you can Ham radio for a crime.

Good point!

People are just going
bonkers more and more now days and they use any little excuse to try to
justify their cause.

I don't know if people are really "just going bonkers" nowadays, or if
we are simply hearing about it more.


This could be true too! More media coverage certainly would make for more
coverage of nut cases!

Not only "Ham", but CB and FRS as well, AND even on a Police channel on
the
scanner - a couple times - I've heard people argue to the point of
telling
others - they were going to kiss their ass. Yes, I've heard COPS get into
it
on the radio. Talk about "professionalism"! Yes, I've heard of fights on
Ham
and CB where one person is "trying" to talk and another - instead of
acting
like a gentleman - acts like an ass - and whalah - an argument ensues.
Instead of changing channels or letting the issue drop - they pursue it.
Some - yes - to the point of personally hunting the other down for an ass
kicking or murder. That is "rage" which was brought on - not by radio -
but
by those who have issues dealing with others - who don't like to be
crowded.
The radio was only a means of them asserting their behaviour publicly -
and
finding a victim. Not much different than Road Rage.

Being mostly a CW operator, I've not heard anything like that on the
ham bands.


I wonder if that is because - too easy to say it all "verbally" and well -
with code - one wouldn't have quite as big an audience - therefore the
aggressor wouldn't be able to make himself/herself look bigger when in
actuality - we know it is the opposite. Most people don't copy MOST messages
in code - or ANY for that matter - unless looking for the call to be next in
line, wanting to join in, practicing copying code.

You can't pick "just" HAM RADIO out of the bunch - any hobby, sport,
activity, job, etc - can set people off.

Of course. And ultimately it is the person who is responsible.


EXACTLY!

Conducting research to see how many hams committed crimes - would be
"less"
interesting than one which shows how many accidents were as a result of
using all radio modes while driving - be they Ham, CB, 2 way, etc. - AS
OPPOSED to CELL PHONE! I don't EVER recall seeing the states cracking
down
on CBers or Hams - due to "irratic driving" as they are now - with Cells.

I think there's a basic difference with cell phones. With radio, it's
one-way, with a phone, it's two-way. A lot of mobile radio is a
roundtable-type discussion, where you spend only a small part of the
time talking. And you can put the mike down when not talking!


Yes, but the point is - the discussion was somewhat leaning towards a
study of "criminals" in Ham radio! It is far easier to commit crimes with
"cell"! AND as we all know - some people can't talk and chew bubble gum at
the same time. I don't care if you're (meaning anyone) in a house, phone
booth, or in your car with a cell phone - if you have a person who talks a
lot with the hands, guess what is going to be happening as they're driving!
The hands come off the wheel and whalah - lost control. I've seen people
reading news papers and driving, watching TV, talking on their cells AND
using the hands - a LOT. Women putting on make-up - no hands on wheels, etc.
So - I'll not place "all" the blame on Cell phones - but rather the people
who can't use them - shall we say - "safely".

With the heavy use of Cell Phones, I'd be willing to bet that Ham radio
"IF"
responsible for ANY crimes - is like maybe 1/1000th of a percent -
compared
to cells - which are used for harassment, stalking, spying, etc.
"Maybe" - just "maybe" - I could go along to some very minor extent - but
for the most part - I DOUBT Ham is as responsible for crimes as this post
seems to suggest. IF there are any "psychologists/psychiatrists" out
there
or "social workers" who read these, PLEASE DO - chime in. I'd love to see
your opinion as well.

Perhaps the biggest factor is simply popularity. There are less than a
million US hams, and of those, the number actively operating mobile is
a couple hundred thousand at most.

Compare that to the more than 100 million cell phones now in use....


Agreed!

It's not "ham radio", CB, vehicles, etc.......... it is SELF CONTROL -
which
makes the difference.

Well said.

73 de Jim, N2EY


WE agree - but I think some points made were being a tad confused OR
overlooked.

Slow Code wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in
:

Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of
"clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am
guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining
confines when it comes to their rights.


Democrats do that all the time to try to come up with ways to push their
pro-homosexual, anti-morality, anti-America adgenda.


You should read the papers more often. The Party of Deviancy seems to be
NOT the democrats.

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/9071.php

http://fp.uni.edu/northia/article2.a...5495&SECTION=2

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=42954

http://snipurl.com/bh9y


Lots more out there.


mike

wrote in message

Well, I hope the tech boys really sharpen their pencils. Because if sharing
those freqs is that damn tight we are going to either have to petition the
FCC for band expansion, go into the ghz for specific uses, or have a lottery
to issue ham licenses, develop new technology, or some combination of the
above.

Regards,
JS