NRA Gives Ajit Pai 'Courage Award' and Gun For 'Saving the Internet' (arstechnica.com)

The National Rifle Association (NRA) today gave its Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award to Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. "Pai was about to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland when the award presentation seemed to catch him by surprise," reports Ars Technica. "The award is a handmade long gun that could not be brought on stage, so it will be housed in the NRA museum until Pai can receive it." From the report: "Ajit Pai, as you probably already know, saved the Internet," American Conservative Union (ACU) Executive Director Dan Schneider told the audience. The ACU is the host of CPAC; Schneider made a few more remarks praising Pai before handing the award presentation over to NRA board member Carolyn Meadows. Pai "fought to preserve your free speech rights" as a member of the FCC's Republican minority during the Obama administration, Schneider said. Pai "fought and won against all odds, but the Obama administration had some curveballs and they implemented these regulations to take over the Internet." "As soon as President Trump came into office, President Trump asked Ajit Pai to liberate the Internet and give it back to you," Schneider added. "Ajit Pai is the most courageous, heroic person that I know."

The signature achievement that helped Pai win the NRA courage award came in December when the FCC voted to eliminate net neutrality rules. The rules, which are technically still on the books for a while longer, prohibited Internet service providers from blocking and throttling lawful Internet traffic and from charging online services for prioritization. Schneider did not explain how eliminating net neutrality rules preserved anyone's "free speech rights." Right Wing Watch posted a video of the ceremony.

Comments

Re:Yes, stick to your purpose

[Hal_Porter]

It's entirely reasonable it doesn't defend the 2nd given the modern interpretation of that amendment isn't how it's traditionally been interpreted up until the mid-seventies.

Wait. What? You're saying the actually text of the law didn't change but the left have 'reinterpreted' it to mean the exact opposite of what it used to mean since the mid-seventies.

Gee. I wonder why American conservatives are so keen to get originalist judges on the SCOTUS and not ones appointed by the left who'll reinterpret the first and second amendments to be 'You're allowed to speak but not hate speech. And hate speech is anything a conservative says' and 'You're allowed to have a gun if you join the army. Otherwise you're not and we're sending the ATF round to kick your door down'.

Once the left sets the precedent that the actual text of the law doesn't matter, only the interpretation, and that the left will appoint judges who'll interpret it in the way which most benefits the left and shafts the right, it's really game over for the notion that the US is a representative republic. What you've got is mob rule where the mob gets to decide what rights you've got. And the left's media sock puppets will mobilise the mob against anyone who sticks up for rights they disagree with.

Look at that disgraceful display on CNN where an hand picked audience of leftists hooted and booed Rubio and asked him questions like this

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/0...

KASKY: I'm sorry, I know I'm not supposed to do this, but I'm not going to listen to that. Senator Rubio, it's hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nicholas Cruz, but the point is you're here and there some people who are not.
And I need to ask two things of you. Number one, Chris Grady, can you stand up? This is my friend who is going to the military. I need you to tell him that he's going to live to make it to serve our country. And then we'll get to the other one.

Honestly looking at this I'd say the left need to be stopped. At all costs. The logic of what they're doing where laws mean exactly what they want them to mean regardless of what the actual words say and where it's all up to a mob handpicked to be 100% left is far more horrifying than some nutcase shooting a couple of dozen people.

And if that seems heartless consider Jefferson's attitude to violence

http://tjrs.monticello.org/let...

the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.

And it's interesting how the left doesn't mobilise emotion when it's a crime that doesn't fit their agenda. E.g. illegal immigrants killing natives, Muslims shooting up a gay bar or committing a terror attack. It's not like they have a town hall in those cases where an angry crowd berates a Democrat Senator over immigration law.

Maybe the right *should* be doing that if the left are going to do it to push for their agenda.