Whooznxt support stinks!

The contest is great and there are many talented entries.

We are having trouble with Whooznxt support.

My son's video for the Satriani Master Class contest "The Golden Room" had problems due to copyright infringement - YouTube actually labels the artist as "Joe Satriani" on his page because the content matched so closely. You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKM4Pqyjo8

Though you can play the video from the http://Satriani.whooznxt.com site (he's number 22 on the list right now) THEY ARE NOT COUNTING ANY YouTube SUBSCRIPTIONS on his account!!!

We have tried to contact Whooznxt several times with NO response.

Hey Joe,

There's this crazy show here in Holland called 'Fans' which is all about deranged fans who are really devoted to their idol or that band they idolize. They go really far and it makes me laugh every time. However tonight I could sympathize with them because here I was left standing again together with just five other people at the back exit of the Heineken Music Hall, just in time to wave goodbye when the white van left in a hurry. I don't know. Just trying to get da masters' signature on my custom chromed guitar...Same thing in Tilburg in 2010... Am I taking this too seriously?

Something for ALL to think about ~

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary: Definition of MILITIA 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should... a. be labeled a moron b. shut the fuck up c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Since the last year i was following your G3 tour, and i'm hoping (god, will be awesome) if you come to Colombia in the South america's tour. i saw your "i just wanna rock" dvd last night i can imagine you playing here with the great vai.

Michelle, i can see how strongly you feel about this. i feel for those people in Colorado too. whether you like it or not, the militia is every able-bodied person of age. that is how it was when they wrote our Constitution. all the citizens were expected to provide their own arms and defend the nation. it seems to me that when people form militias and practice so they can actually do the job, certain people tend to get worried and upset, and try to stop the militias from organizing. the whole purpose of an armed public is to protect us from the rule makers, the government. that is a tough job now that we have a standing army, but nonetheless that is what the militia is for. the other thing is, that the bill of rights is not a list of rights granted to us by the government, it is a list of natural rights that every person has, given to him by his creator. there are a lot more people alive because of guns then there are dead because of them. there certainly are not 100,000 deaths from gun violence each year. tragedies like this happen in spite of laws against gun ownership. i do agree with you that in a crowded theater, with no clear target, it would have been difficult for armed citizens to stop this guy. i am sure there were warning signs that this guy was not right in the head. now as far as the weapon he used, there are probably hundreds of different guns that fire the same cartridges that he used. there is nothing more powerful about that gun than the others. the highest crime rates are where the guns have been taken from the people. if the people of this country want to dis-arm the public, they can make a constitutional amendment and do it the right way. i doubt if that will happen in my lifetime. it is more likely that the government will try to 'protect us from ourselves'

Dave, we're going to have to agree to disagree, especially ~

" there is nothing more powerful about that gun than the others"

Really?? So that makes it better or okay how?

" the highest crime rates are where the guns have been taken from the people. if the people of this country want to dis-arm the public, they can make a constitutional amendment and do it the right way. i doubt if that will happen in my lifetime. it is more likely that the government will try to 'protect us from ourselves' "

Have you met the public? Who are the people taking their guns? Name names and agencies. The people taking guns are the very same people that also take your tv, jewelry, electronics, and illusion of being safe because you own a gun. There is NO NEED for a public citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon. NONE. If you can't defend yourself and your family with a pistol or hunting rifle, then that's just to bad.

I don't want to take your guns! I want you to be mentally stable and trained to use it. I want you to have to fill out 22 gaddamn pages of information and have a double and even triple background check to be able to own one. I want every gun owner to have gun safes and gun locks.

I wanna live in a world where fucktards can't use semi-automatic weapons because they're to much of a coward to deal with LIFE and the blows that come with it!

The Constitution was NOT written for the year 2012!

If that were the case, then the crazy motherf**ker who shot unsuspecting unarmed men, women, and children in a dark movie theater was in the right. I mean, he felt threatened by something (LIFE), and he felt he had the right to defend himself , right? That's the meaning of it all, right? No matter what the mental status of the gun owner, they have the right to own the highest caliber weapon available. It's the AMERICAN WAY!

And btw, I didn't write the article, but I strongly agree with it.

So, just what is the "right way" to make a constitutional amendment?

Agree to disagree. No disrespect. I'd just really like to understand the reason to defend this insanity. Is it the lies and deception through the NRA, or peoples OWN thoughts on this subject that get things so skewed?

I truly believe this particular madman was out to make a "name" for himself & had he not had access to the weapons in his possession..he would have found another means of mass destruction as evidenced by his booby trapped and bomb filled apartment.

I feel those with evil intent will always find a way even if we take one way away they will find another......

I would love to think that in the absence of guns that there would be an absence of senseless violence against the innocent but I cannot conjure that amount of faith........

This is not a statement in favor of guns just a statement about the reality of evil & hatred & delusional madmen that exist in this world. very very sad. I wish there was an easy fix.

I see none.

its ok if we disagree Michelle.i didn't see the author's name at the bottom the first time i read it so i thought they were your words.

the founders wrote the Constitution a long time ago and they did it right. they knew there would be things that needed changed over time. but they didn't want a small majority like 50.001% to dictate to the other 49.999%. that is why it is so hard to amend the Constitution. it should be hard. it takes 3/4 of the states to pass an amendment. you can be sure that if an amendment is passed, then it was the will of the people.

'there is NO NEED for a public citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon. NONE. If you can't defend yourself and your family with a pistol or hunting rifle, then that's just to bad.'

the right to bear arms is not just to protect your family, it is to defend the nation. that was the will of the founders. if you want to change that, you have to convince 75% of the people. otherwise you have to live with it or move elsewhere. i live in the people's republic of california and we have some strict gun control here but i was born here and i like the climate so i put up with the curtailment of my rights.

'I want you to have to fill out 22 gaddamn pages of information and have a double and even triple background check to be able to own one. I want every gun owner to have gun safes and gun locks. '

if we had to do what you want, it would violate the Constitution. there can be no infringement on the right to bear arms. in many places there is a total ban. it isn't right. i sometimes wish they would make people take a test and fill out papers before they vote. or give the lawmakers a drug test before they vote. hell, how about they just ask for ID to make sure who you are. but its not going to happen. so i live with it.

i really don't know what to say about the "the lies of the NRA' . that organization has been around a long time and they are all about defending the rights of regular people. just imagine that instead of the second amendment that was being attacked, it was the first amendment. you wouldn't stand for it. you would fight back. imagine a background check before you could post back to this forum, or a fee every time you wrote your newspaper. the NRA reports to its members what our elected representatives are voting on and how it affects our rights.

Not my place to comment on another country's politics. All I can say is thank God our country came about a different way and we have no such provision in our constitution to stop our Prime Minister legislating guns out of our community many years ago. It was a major step in our nation's safety, best thing that ever happened. Apparently we have only around 0.14 deaths by gun per 100,000 population., depending on the data source. That's about as good as it gets I reckon. The USA seems to have a huge dilemma with its Constitution, I sincerely hope the people of the US can get to some sort of win-win somehow.

Thanks for the 2012 tour Joe!!

Dave, yep, agree to disagree. Votes here in America are bought and paid for by corporations and entities like the NRA. Money equals power. Everyone is aware of that fact, and it happens no matter what side of the fence you're on.

The thing that bothers me is that a person can buy 3000 rounds of ammo online, and no red flag. You can pretty much buy whatever you want, from one source or another, and go undetected, no questions asked. You can build yourself an arsenal. You can buy Kevlar protection head to toe. No questions. Helmet. Gas mask. No questions. Bomb making material. No problem. After all, it's your right as an American.

How many stories have you or anyone you know read where a citizen had to use a semi-automatic rifle to protect themselves from a home intruder or a mugger on the street? How many bullets does it take to drop a dear or whatever animal you're hunting for food? One, maybe two. They can be dropped by a sharp stick with a point on it! No need for automatics there.

I believe people are more in love with their entitlement than with what's right or better for society as a whole. As long as it's somebody else getting slaughtered, it's not your problem.

Keep those guns ready for that imagined Armageddon they keep filling people's heads with. When the day comes where you have to be in a MILITIA to live and survive in America, I'm the hell outta here.

People need to feel powerful by owning and shooting semi-automatics. Just like driving big trucks or fancy cars or designer clothes. It's ego. Entitlement. Fear. It's a sad state of mind IMO.

Isn't there some sort of middle ground between balls out owning an arsenal, and banning all guns? Gun lovers see it as such a threat. As such a crushing blow to an outdated document. Funny how when people follow the bible to the T, we call them freaks and say that book isn't with the times and needs to be updated - and that supposedly came from GOD! So a document written in 1700's by a bunch of guys in pantaloons and wigs is supposed to be solid gold and still fit into today's standards??

' a document written in 1700's by a bunch of guys in pantaloons and wigs is supposed to be solid gold and still fit into today's standards??'

Michelle, the constitution is up to date. it has been amended 27 times, the most recently in 1992. the second amendment is not about the right to sporting arms, it is about the right of military arms. the supreme court has decided that the second amendment applies to military style weapons and it is an individual right. the only way to change it is by amendment. those guys in pantaloons were the founding fathers and they were a pretty smart bunch of guys. not perfect, but that is why they made a way to update the document as needed.

'Votes here in America are bought and paid for by corporations and entities like the NRA.' agreed, just include Big Hollywood, left wing media, and the unions.

'How many stories have you or anyone you know read where a citizen had to use a semi-automatic rifle to protect themselves from a home intruder or a mugger on the street? How many bullets does it take to drop a dear or whatever animal you're hunting for food? One, maybe two. They can be dropped by a sharp stick with a point on it! No need for automatics there.'

there have been lots of incidences of self defense with firearms. probably many more with handguns than long guns. there are legitimate uses of all these guns.

'I believe people are more in love with their entitlement than with what's right or better for society as a whole. As long as it's somebody else getting slaughtered, it's not your problem. '

i think you could substitute the word 'taxed' for slaughtered to make that a correct statement.