NRA gives FCC boss Ajit Pai a gun as reward for killing net neutrality. Yeah, an actual gun Ajit Pai – chairman of America's broadband watchdog, the FCC – is the proud new owner of a handmade Kentucky long gun from the US National Rifle Association (NRA) – thanks to his brave stance in favor of lining the pockets of billion-dollar telcos. The watchdog boss said he was surprised to receive the Charlton Heston Courage …
This post has been deleted by its author
@Oliver Jones:"Gun control is required before Communism can take power..."
Hot take, bro.
If gun control is a precursor of communism, how come I can count the number of communist states on one hand? China, Cuba, Laos, Best Korea and Vietnam
The 2nd amendment is bullshit anyway.
It might have been cool 200 years ago, but a well regulated militia would never win against the combined US military today. Dream on.
And I know what you're going to say - "look at Afghanistan, look at what guerrilla fighters achieved"
The difference between guerrillas in Afghanistan and Americans is that Americans have no stomach for violence at home. Sure, they like it when it's in faraway places or on TV and in the movies, and imagine that they would be that "hero with a gun". The reality, as we saw from those cowardly cops in Parkland, is somewhat different...
This post has been deleted by its author
@Oliver Jones:"Tell that to Hitler..."
Gun nuts often use that old lie alright; that Hitler only achieved what he did because he got the citizens to give up their guns. Few people owned guns in Europe in the 1930s, including Germans.
"Whether a well-run militia could beat the US military today is actually irrelevant...
Why then do so many Americans claim they need their guns in case they need to rise up against their government? Why is the provision still in the 2nd amendment?
You were arguing earlier that gun control would usher in communism, but you never answered my question. How come there aren't more communist states?
Take off your tinfoil hat and go outside for some fresh air...
In fact, the nazi party REPEALED a lot of the Weimar republic's restrictive gun laws during their rise to power. They just made a little effort to ensure the "right" people had guns.
The 2nd amendment doesn't seem to be applied equally either. Take that bundy militia taking over a federal building and getting a slap on the wrist - now what do you think the response would be if, say, the standing rock protestors had brought weapons, considering the reaction they got from the police WITHOUT them?
Re: Hitler and guns..
Umm, if I remember my 20th century German gun laws correctly (no guarantee I did), Hitler had the MOST permissive private gun ownership laws. Under the Kaiser, there was no private gun ownership (or only the nobility, I forget off the top of my head). Post WW2 German private ownership was very restricted.
During the third reich, German citizens were allowed (IIRC, encouraged) to own guns. Not the Jews, of course, but everyone else.
Just temeber anyway that when Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland raised against Russian control, they were crushed by Russian tanks.
guerrilla works only as long as you have someone to supply you, a terrain which offers cover, and enough suicidal members., And against troops not ready to clean up support and strongholds with heavy weapons.
Hot take, bro.
Not just hot, full of shit too.
I used to live in a "communist" country where our apartment was the only one in the apartment block without an assault weapon. The guy above me had an AK47 and his service Makarov (a cop). The quiet procurement department head under me had a Dragunov.The guy under him had a whole collection of rifles including the models of Tulka which classify as an assault weapon. The guy above the cop had another AK47. And so on.
We were the exception with having no guns. The two commando class russian hydraulic harpoons using 9mm 300g arrows (the ones their special forces use) do not count. They are quiet close range weapon. One that shoots above water and punches through fairly thick steel too.
If you are wondering which "communist" country was that do a google image search for "Tracer Bullets New Year Eve Sofia". That will give you the answer. It will also give you the answer on how do I know who had what - they all opened up Arab style from the balkonies on New Years Eve.
By the way, Bulgaria was farily tame - one the most "communist" dictatorship of all - Enver Hodja's Albania had more assault weapons per capita in the hands of the population than USA has now. By far. Everyone had at least one AK47 and not just AK47. The population had heavy machine guns, RPG17s - the works. That did not prevent it from setting the model which is now followed by Kim in Korea and running it for close to 50 years.
So the idea that blanket gun ownership somehow prevents communism is complete utter ratshit. It does not even qualify to be bulshit (that is something that has some use, not just spreading disease).
If gun control is a precursor of communism, how come I can count the number of communist states on one hand? China, Cuba, Laos, Best Korea and Vietnam
You might want a six-fingered hand soonish then, as Venezuela is set to join their ranks.
(One may consider them effectively communist already)
They are so unequivalent it is laughable. Almost all gun deaths are the result of trying to deliberately kill someone - either yourself or another person/people. I don't know what the accidental discharge or "hit the wrong target" rate of deaths is, but I think we can safely assume it is much less than 10%. Even if you throw out suicides that means over a third of firearms deaths were deliberate.
How many automobile deaths can you say were deliberate, excluding suicide? Surely well under 1%, unless you want to argue that it is murder if you drive 80 mph on ice and kill someone after you inevitably wreck.
The other factor that separates automotive deaths is that if you are in a position to kill others with a car, you are almost always in a position to die as well. The only way that would be true for guns would be if the breech would randomly blow up about 30% of the time you pulled the trigger. How many people would choose a gun to kill someone with those odds? I think there would be a lot more knife crime!
The 2nd amendment is bullshit anyway.
It might have been cool 200 years ago, but a well regulated militia would never win against the combined US military today. Dream on.
Speaking of the 2nd amendment, the The Militia Act of 1792 (passed at the start of May within six months of the 2nd amendment) starts by saying "That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion"
So.... the purpose of the "militia" is defined as basically that of the National Guard, not to "resist tyranny" or any of that crap.
For all those Supreme Court justices who like to go with the "original meaning" of the constitution they are pretty damn ignorant where it comes to the second amendment.
Concerning the 2nd amendment and militias, let's separate it out to the two clauses it contains:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is a justification clause. It states the reason that the amendment exists and carries no provisions.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is the operative clause, the part of the amendment which actually guarantees a right. It is not dependent upon the justification clause and does not cease its function if the justification clause ceases to be true.
In other words, any argument about a militia not being necessary any more are irrelevant. Whether we actually still need a militia or not the operative clause of the 2nd amendment is still in full legal force and, as part of the Constitution, is the highest law in the land.
Until and unless an amendment is passed limiting or repealing the second then it, and the protection of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is in full effect, as has been backed up by multiple SCOTUS decisions, the most recent of which was a mere decade ago.
Now if anyone wants to talk about such an amendment, by all means lets discuss it. But let's not waste our time trying to pass gun laws which A) won't get enforced very well if existing gun laws are any example, and B) are going to get overturned in SCOTUS on the first challenge because they violate the 2nd amendment.
If we're going to ban something in response to all the school shootings, it should be SSRIs. The vast majority of school shooters have been on one or more psychoactive drugs, almost all of which have the publicly state side effect of "suicidal ideation". And if you've got a big enough grudge, it's not all that far from suicidal ideation to acting on homicidal ideation. But of course that's next to never suggested: it's not sexy like gun control and Big Pharma isn't about to let their cash cow go without a fight.
@AC banning SSRIs
You seriously have no idea what the sam hell you are talking about. SSRIs (typically used as anti depressants and anti anxiety medication) list 10,000 side effects. Simply due to the legal horseshit that has fallen out of the bio-medical industry and the legal industry in the states. Once you understand that the statement "The vast majority of school shooters have been on one or more psychoactive drugs" has *No* basis in fact you'll find that the horse you road in on is an invisible unicorn.
In the UK in 1996 we had a school shooting in Dunblane - shortly after, private ownership of handguns was pretty much banned - the public have never been allowed to own fully- or semi-automatic weapons.
After that one, awful, event, there have been no more school shootings.
Just since 2010 in the USA, in schools there have been:- 146 separate events leaving 156 dead and 247 injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s
Absolutely tragic.
There is nothing about the NRA anymore that has to do with hunters.
Given that 90+% of its members are hunters, I would have to disagree with you here.
The NRA has been shown to be a conduit between the russians and the US congress/lobbyists.
Sources please.
Let's ban all firearms until we have a rational policy. Let's take a lesson from other countries that are far more intelligent and civilized than mine.
In the UK the murder rates went up when they implemented gun bans (source). In Australia the gun ban had very little effect on the murder rate (source) and the armed robbery rate actually increased (source).That being the case a blanket firearms ban would be one of the dumbest things we could possibly do based on existing examples. Not to mention the fact that it would require a Constitutional amendment that, frankly, wouldn't have a prayer of passing even in the current anti-gun frenzy.
Clearly courageous and heroic mean something different to the speaker of this inane comment than they do to most of the population. To do what Mr. Pai has done since the King in Yellow was elected requires neither courage nor heroism - just a thick skin, bull-headedness and a complete lack of concern for the consumers his organisation is supposed to protect.
Nice King In Yellow reference. We haven't fully slipped into R. Chambers' "Repairer of Reputations" alternate timeline quite yet, though it certainly isn't for lack of trying by the Old Ones and their emissaries like Pai.
Strange is the night where black stars rise,
And strange moons circle through the skies,
But stranger still is Lost America.
Banning 5 million legal firearms is almost impossible. As much as I completely agree that the NRA need to be reigned in, the call to ban the constitutional right is not going to be an easy one, mainly because a large number of those 5 million NRA members will simply not give up their right to own something they clearly need to survive off of the harsh US wilderness...
It would need to be a slow reduction. Banning of sale of automatic weapons.. then banning of ownership... then semis... then large calibre... if it works for that long, only then can they ban the remaining weapons.
It'll take decades.
Some people have suggested banning ammo.. but those who really like their guns will have boxes upon boxes stored away, ready for days like that....
Or the Apocolypse...
Everybody keeps trying to do this back door ban thing. That’s not going to work. If you don’t like the 2nd amendment, the founders created the framework on getting it repealed. Follow the framework that they created. Back door attempts are just going to get ruled unconstitutional.
there are limits on every right in The Bill of Rights . . . there are limits on 'free speech' (unless it's money) and there have been restrictions on fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and others for a long time now.
i have no idea why the supreme court decided that everybody is a member of a "well regulated militia" . . . but i suspect the reason is money again.
Banning 5 million legal firearms is almost impossible.
Tripe. How many million firearms do you think were floating around Europe in 1946? Where are they now? Do you seriously think there are millions of STEN guns squirrelled away in potting sheds all over the continent? Your figure seems low to me, but even if you're off by a couple of orders of magnitude it changes nothing (besides making them easier to find). How many tins of lead paint or tons of asbestos do you think needed tracking down and disposing of after they were recognised as potentially lethal?
The logistics of banning firearms in the US are simple. The problem is the political will to face down the (inevitable) couple of dozen Ruby Ridge/Waco incidents which the tin foil hatted FEMA Camps/NWO/Freeman on the Land/Militia lunatics will inevitably provoke.
If you are going to argue that a lightly but dangerously armed populace is a good thing then defend that position on its merits. Trying to deflect the question with bogus claims of logistical impossibility discredits your argument because it implies you realise yourself that your position is untenable.
So, armed civilians prevent government tyranny? Fine. Explain how a bunch of amateurs using only 9mm pistols and 5.56mm rifles stop a tank? Or a Predator? Or an Apache helicopter? Or just a bunch of professionals with M-16s and grenade launchers? It's ridiculous. You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it.
If you're going to claim the 2A is anything other than a historical anachronism then find a coherent argument that isn't rooted in "liberty" vs. men with muskets. You might as well riff off the founder's obsession with Rome and bolt the right to own a gladius into the Constitution, or go all Anglo-Saxon and make it a seax.
This Washington Post article makes interesting reading, suggesting the 2A is much more about militias than arms...
"So, armed civilians prevent government tyranny? Fine. Explain how a bunch of amateurs using only 9mm pistols and 5.56mm rifles stop a tank? Or a Predator? Or an Apache helicopter? Or just a bunch of professionals with M-16s and grenade launchers? It's ridiculous. You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it."
Oh? Explain how heavily outgunned Vietnamese drove out the mightiest army in the world? What about Somalia? Afghanistan? Iraq? I believe the British had a lot of trouble with the Gurkhas, too. One thing in common: a stubborn defending home front. Why would the US be any different if push came to shove?
Quote
I believe the British had a lot of trouble with the Gurkhas,
Yes, they did but a long time ago. Now the Ghurkas serve with pride in the British Army. They may be short (as in height) but you really don't want to get on the wrong side of them. My next door neighbour is a former Sgt Major in the Ghurkas. He retired and now lives in the UK with his family.
Someone with MiG-21, artillery, AA missiles, and anti-tank weapons doesn't look 'outgunned' to me, especially when its supply lines are intact because stopping them would involve a war with China and Russia. While in deep forests tanks are mostly useless, and the side whose soldiers are more expendable has a big advantage in close combat..
In Somalia the US troops were outgunned, because they were on a Peace effort. So, no tanks and other heavy weaponry. When they were under siege, they had to ask Pakistani armored vehicles to save them.
In Iraq and Kuwait, Saddam's troops were defeated and in a rout
Suicidal attackers backed by religious/political madness, the a good part of the population, and by some state supplying weapons, are another issue, especially if you're not ready to heavy bomb them, and destroy supply lanes.
Plus the advantage, both physical and psychological, of fighting on home ground.
Add the fact that the US was still trying to fight a conventional war (in a WW2 stylee) against a mostly-guerilla force (although backed by conventional forces armed and financed by the USSR and China).
And guess what? Conventional forces vs guerilla armies == lots of casualties for both sides. And a western-style democracy (as the US was then) is a lot more sensitive to casualties than a despotic regieme.
Vietnam wasn't a military victory - it was a political one.
Oh? Explain how heavily outgunned Vietnamese drove out the mightiest army in the world? What about Somalia? Afghanistan? Iraq?
All cases of foreign invasion. The relevant comparison for small arms against government oppression would be the spectacular (lack of) success the domestic opposition to Saddam Hussein enjoyed when he was in power.
The problem with the "defending to home front" analysis is that if the government bans guns and sends forces in to collect them then they are defending the home front against an internal insurrection. No extended supply lines, no unusual terrain and no external meddling (because they definitely control the navy and air force).
@Kaltern:"It would need to be a slow reduction. Banning of sale of automatic weapons.. then banning of ownership... then semis... then large calibre... if it works for that long, only then can they ban the remaining weapons.
It'll take decades."
Why? Australia did it in weeks after the Port Arthur massacre.
The point of saying "keep your guns, ban ammo" is so that idiots argue how impossible that would be and then say what an imbecilic argument that is. Then the proposer can say "OK, so we ban guns then, as that seems to be easier". It's one or the other because otherwise people killing each other remains an impersonal point and click, fatalistic whim.
So what if it takes decades? Is that a reason not to start?
Gun owners are dieing off in the US anyway, their average age is now over 55. And there are fewer of them, only about a third of the population own guns now vs over 40% a few decades ago.
Start by banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Also any gun carrier or used in a crime must be destroyed, not resold to be used again. Next ban the private sale of guns, all guns must be sold through a licensed dealer that must verify and record both the seller and buyer identities. Failure to do so means heavy fines, and destruction of the gun. And of course all the other common sense measures like mandatory training, licensing, background checks etc.
It can all be done, they just have to start.
"Banning 5 million legal firearms is almost impossible."
There were millions of guns running loose around Europe after WW2 - many brought back as momentos from the war. My dad had one (or was it two). But they were squeezed out of the system quite quickly. Strangely communism didn't fill the void. Even more weirdly communist countries decided to eventually become non-communist - and succeeded without the use of arms.
Strict gun control can never completely stop bad people doing bad things. But it can reduce it from a major hazard to something very unusual - and something you don't need to prepare kids for. Here the Dunblane school shooting still resonates. The rules were tightened even more. Dunblane was 1996. That's 22 years ago. We may have a smaller population but not that smaller! The stats do point very strongly that reducing guns reduces risk. Its not rocket science.
Surely its worth a try? Or are the US population voting to remain prisoners of the NRA histrionics? On cold statistics a more threatening domestic terror organisation than those Potus gets excited about.
If rolling eyes could be heard across the pond - you'd be deafened.
"the call to ban the constitutional right is not going to be an easy one, mainly because a large number of those 5 million NRA members will simply not give up their right"
I wonder how many gun owners and especially NRA members are members of a "well regulated militia"? Or did the NRA re-design itself as a militia?
Hint: The clue is in "well regulated". So all gun owners have a "constitutional right" to be "well regulated". Something the NRA seem to be against.
“His reward, a showpiece gun, was not actually handed out on stage, quite possibly because CPAC has a no-weapons policy for its events.”
No, because it would have been illegal to!
He’s a Virginian resident, and CPAC is in Maryland. They’ll have to send the gun to a licensed dealer in Virginia and have them do the transfer to Pai.
@clueless AC
He’s a Virginian resident, and CPAC is in Maryland. They’ll have to send the gun to a licensed dealer in Virginia and have them do the transfer to Pai.
It's considered an "antique," not subject to Federal firearms laws.
It's like watching the ape/bone-club scene in the film 2001. They have been given a boon, and have realised they can use it to smash others in the head, and the others can't seem to stop them! Next up - cannibalism.
What are the odds Trump will give them medals? Services to the New Order. Give them Republican-red MAGA armbands. If you tattoo a voter id number on citizens I'm sure it would cut down on that evil Democrat Hillary/Obama voter fraud next time (although it might make it hard for black people to vote!).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
