What follows is simplified, but based on the true facts, i.e. the responses to the posts linked to here. I am really trying to be fair. Really.
1. The simple, random ChicagoBoyz reader is asked this question: “Should Jane Q. Public be allowed to carry a concealed TV-B-Gone?”
His answer would go something like this: “Are you mad, sir? Why, think for a moment of what you are suggesting. She could use such a device irresponsibly and without express permission! In fact, I can imagine a hideous scenario that should give you pause. She might walk into a crowded sports bar full of cheerful and unsuspecting patron, and when no one was looking at her, at a key moment in The Big Game, reach into her purse, take out the infernal object and turn off the TV! That is the kind of atrocity I am contemplating! Do you grasp that, you irresponsible maniac? No private citizen can possibly be trusted with such awesome power!”
2. The simple, random ChicagoBoyz reader is then asked this question: “Should Jane Q. Public be allowed to carry a concealed Glock?”
His answer would go something like this: “Are you mad, sir, to ask such a question in this venue, this haven of Second Amendment absolutism? I will have you know that the right to keep and bear arms is one of our most precious freedoms! How dare you suggest that Jane Q. Public, a law-abiding citizen, might be denied her natural right, in fact her Constitutionally enshrined right, to possess a concealed firearm, so that she may have instantly at her disposal such lethal force as she alone shall deem necessary for the defense of herself and her loved ones in any contingency. I resent, sir, the merest suggestion that any citizen or our great nation shall not be presumed to be able to carry and use a firearm responsibly and sensibly.”
I agree with 2, by the way.
Nah, this is America. No need for either/or. How about this: a Glock with a built-in TV remote! Be the first on your block. Nobody will turn off your TV again — Guaranteed!
Hmm. . . this gives new meaning to the term, “Glock perfection.”
If the question of prohibition is based on the efficacy of said product, I don’t think glock will have any problems with banishment from our lands ;)
(get a 10mm delta colt elite.)
What we really need to go after is the facilitating products, such as the home beer distillery/reloader
By far, the best post I’ve read today. Thank you.
Of course, if you have a Glock you don’t need the TV-B Gone as the Glock can also disable the TV.
The problem is not with carrying a concealed TV-B-Gone, anymore than carrying a concealed Glock should be a problem. The complaint, or argument, is against someone using TV-B-Gone on TVs that are not theirs. In so far as indiscriminate use of a Glock would subject one to application of force up to and including lethal ones, and/or legal punishment, indiscriminate use of a TV-B-Gone should be subject to same.
Thus the answer to both questions is “Yes, they should be allowed to carry concealed but they should also know how and when to use it or be prepared to suffer the consequences.”
“In so far as indiscriminate use of a Glock would subject one to application of force up to and including lethal ones, and/or legal punishment, indiscriminate use of a TV-B-Gone should be subject to same.”
My hope is that, when you say “the same”, you mean application of force and/or legal punishment, but not specifically including lethal force.
And, yes, I totally agree. I have no problems with people carrying glocks and/or remotes that power down TV’s. I do, however, have problems with people powering down TV’s when the owners of said TV’s would rather have them powered on. If I choose to place a TV in my (hypothetical) business and leave it on, that’s a business decision, and you as my customer would have three choices: tolerate it, complain, or leave. I, as the business owner, would choose whether or not to operate the TV which belongs to me based on consumer feedback.
I think that both LotharBot and felix have stated my position very well.
Other than that, I don’t remember anyone ever saying that someone should be barred from carrying the keychain remote, just that they shouldn’t use it in an irresponsible manner.
After all, I thought that this was exactly what you were proposing. That not only should people carry these remotes, but they should use them to shut down privately owned televisions in privately owned businesses. I think you called it “A worthy cause.”
If this post is any guide, you seem to think that engaging in annoying pranks is a right that should be enshrined in the Constitution.
The level of teeth-gnashing this has generated is on a par with Social Security reform or motorcycle helmets or even fur clothing. Wow.
The discussion is on a blog, Lex! Who’s having trouble keeping everything in perspective?
James
Well – I’ve got neighbors with a TV on their backyard patio. I don’t mind a few hours here & there, but as they get older and deafer and the TV gets louder and louder and THEN THEY LEAVE THE HOUSE BUT LEAVE THE TV ON!!!! ALL DAY!!!
I gotta get me one of these gadgets. When your sound waves cross my property line, you’ve pissed your rights away.
Do they make one for stereos yet?
A little plagiarism…
“1. The simple, random ChicagoBoyz reader is asked this question: “Should Jane Q. Public be allowed to carry a concealed TV-B-Gone?”
His answer would go something like this: “Are you mad, sir, to ask such a question in this venue, this haven of Constitutional absolutism? I will have you know that the right to keep and carry private property is one of our most precious freedoms! How dare you suggest that Jane Q. Public, a law-abiding citizen, might be denied her natural right, in fact her Constitutionally enshrined right, to possess and carry private property in such a way as that it is not immediately obvious, so that she may have instantly at her disposal such electronic capability as she alone shall deem necessary for the defense of her personal space from the intrusion of any sound waves or errant photons that emit from the personal property of another, no matter her location or mood at the time, nor that of any others who might be around her. I resent, sir, the merest suggestion that any citizen or our great nation shall not be presumed to be able to carry and use a TV-B-Gone responsibly and sensibly.”
“2. The simple, random ChicagoBoyz reader is then asked this question: “Should Jane Q. Public be allowed to carry a concealed Glock?”
His answer would go something like this: “Are you mad, sir? Why, think for a moment of what you are suggesting. She could use such a device irresponsibly and without express permission! In fact, I can imagine a hideous scenario that should give you pause. She might walk into a crowded sports bar full of cheerful and unsuspecting patron, and when no one was looking at her, at a key moment in The Big Game, reach into her purse, take out the infernal object and proceed to shoot the TV! That is the kind of atrocity I am contemplating! Do you grasp that, you irresponsible maniac? No private citizen can possibly be trusted with such awesome power!”
*shrugs* So I’m unoriginal, perhaps, and a bit of a plagiarist… but when it comes down to it, it’s not the right of what a person carries, but the manner in which they use it. Using a remote to interfere with another’s property isn’t thematically the same as what was initially written–to accurately compare the two, one would have to put them both to a similar use. Were someone to attempt to shut off a TV or similar electronics device of mine via either remote or by high-speed projectile fired from a handgun, the effect is the same, and both will make me angry. Too bad there’s no equivalent to the FCC for this, but I recommend some look at their laws and ordinances when it comes to radio-operated equipment–devices made to interfere with another’s use of their equipment are not illegal in and of themselves, but use of them certainly is. I don’t see much difference here.
This is kind of a misleading analogy, because the immediate consequence of using a TV-B-Gone is very minor (a TV shuts off), while the use of a Glock creates a much greater disturbance (and somebody often dies).
The violence of a gunshot, and its potentially lethal consequences, suppress irresponsible and “willy-nilly” uses.
However, because the TVBG creates such a small annoyance, and does so with virtual anonymity, it is very likely that some antisocial people will use it randomly, frequently, and irresponsibly.