Now thanks to Republican Congressman Pete King of NY [1] we have legislation that makes silent cell phone cameras illegal. I guess having silent cameras is ok- or what’s next- making video cameras make noise like old movie film?
A BILL
To require mobile phones containing digital cameras to make a sound when a photograph is taken.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Camera Phone Predator Alert Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDING.
Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.
SEC. 3. AUDIBLE SOUND STANDARD.
(a) Requirement- Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, any mobile phone containing a digital camera that is manufactured for sale in the United States shall sound a tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone. A mobile phone manufactured after such date shall not be equipped with a means of disabling or silencing such tone or sound.
We’re in the midst of 2 wars, a financial crisis, and 60,000 people being fired in a day- and Pete King is worried about cell phone cameras?
I’m sure the people of NY ‘s 3rd district are real proud of this bumpkin.
What makes this even more stupid is all the camera cellphones already out there. Assuming this bumpkin’s bill would pass I could just keep my current cellphone and take whatever pics I want without it making a sound.
Do it Pete, Do it! Just like the stupid banning of assault weapons, this will make my Sony Video camera priceless (a new bubble to stimulate the American Economy) as it does not make a sound or emit a red light when in record mode. Ahh that homemade porn will require a “cough” as the shutter is fluttered.
Pete King has always been an idiot check out the record.
Hmm, requiring a sound on camera cell phones isn’t quite the same as banning assault weapons, is it? Sure, there is the analogy that there will still be existing assault weapons on the market and their value will go up, but come on! do you really think Americans have a Second Amendment right to absolutely any and every type of firearm out there? And even if you do think that, it’s not just ultra liberal Democrats who disagree. The Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 had broad bipartisan support, with 45 Republican senators voting for it and almost unanimous support in the House voice vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban). Give me a break!
Give me a break – Learn the Constitution and understand it. We are talking about the stupidity of Congress, are we not? You can site all the bipartisan support and Supreme Court Cases (Dred Scott?) you want, they are still wrong. I can read and understand the intent of the Founders. Remember it is a democratic REPUBLIC! The goal was to keep the Citizenry as ARMED as the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT – Stop David, Breathe and Think. If the CITIZENRY was as ARMED as the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, we would have a GOVERNMENT that respected us more and entangled in foreign affairs less. GET IT!
But Hey I will compromise on the 2nd Amendment. I will give up my Assault Rifle if they give up all Nuclear Weapons. You keep missing the analogy and you will be watched or on the Spit.
2nd Amendment Republican and Ron Paul Supporter, but OBAMA Voter Greg Hunter! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Fine, Greg, let’s take the Second Amendment to the logical extension of the way you interpret it. It doesn’t say firearms, it says “arms,” and nuclear weapons are also considered arms, as in “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense”. Should every American be allowed to own his or her own personal nuclear arms? No limits whatsoever, huh?
Imagine Andy Rooney in his distinctive voice: “You know what I hate more than silent camera phones, how about people passing gas in public with no warning? How about a law against SBDs (silent butt deadlies)? Maybe somebody needs to ask Pete King to do something about a real problem.”
Short answer – YES! If this scenario was part of the consideration, post WWII Nuclear weaponse never would have been deployed, which is my goal!
The 2nd Amendment was ruined when the US regulated weapons to fight Americans right to drink BOOOZE! The GMEN were outgunned by them darn importers so gun regulation was “sold” to the American populace and Congress, plus the Judicial System acquiesced.
Bullshit then and bullshit, now. It is called the MAD doctrine.
When do people learn that they convince no one when they argue their position as a shrill screed? Give me a break indeed.
Sorry Larkin, is that all you have to add? Give me a Break was first blood, so the conclusion is my argument is sound, it is your acceptance that is weak.
So we spent a whole lot of time worrying about peder-asses in this country don’t we?
Can’t we just get a sign for every politician that says he is against sexual predators so we can avoid stupid ass legislation that is more about him getting a pat on the back then actually preventing anything.
Greg, I don’t bother with people who can’t engage in civil discourse. (Except for Gene, and that’s only because he’s so entertaining.)
BS – You do not participate in an argument that you cannot win, as I do not play games I cannot win.
At least we have Harry Callahan in common.
“A man has too know his limitations”
I don’t have a dog in this fight, Greg. I just don’t understand why people (not just you, the guilty are many) ever believe they will persuade others to their way of thinking by insulting them. Callahan’s photographs of his wife were exquisite.
Larkin – The 2nd amendment argument really ticks me off as the founder’s idea was corrupted long ago and the lack of education or correction on the subject comes from too few people. Registration is infringement, tax on ammunition is infringement and if you want to argue the definition of militia, let’s go.
One person’s pop cultural reference may not be anothers!
Thanks for the enlightenment!
My posting this isn’t intended really to sway anyone’s mind, I suppose, but rather just to vent, but I feel compelled to say that anyone who thinks the founders, were they alive today, would see the Second Amendment as banning any restrictions on citizens owning arms of any kind, including nuclear arms (“Short answer – YES!”), isn’t thinking clearly.
But I do love your answer, Greg, to my question. I just wish the NRA would adopt it when lobbying for gun owners’ rights. The “right to bear nuclear arms” is on a par with PETA’s advocating for sea kittens.
Gentlemen:
I think you have it all wrong. The “right to bare arms…”(as it was SUPPOSED to be spelled: the heat was getting to the founders as they were writing) is nothing but a fashion statement regarding short-sleeved shirts, such as the puffy shirt it the Seinfeld episode– except with the right to roll the sleeves up and not be persecuted.
It’s quite simple. I haven’t for years understood the debate.