Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Sadly this is not off topic:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/18/trump-nra-fbi-alexander-torshin-russia-investigation
The FBI is investigating whether a Russian banker with close ties to Vladimir Putin funneled money through the National Rifle Association to support Donald Trumpâ(TM)s presidential campaign....The NRA spent at least $30m to back Trumpâ(TM)s 2016 campaign for president...News outlets have been examining ties and meetings between NRA leaders and Russia for months, including a 2015 NRA delegation to Moscow that included meetings with influential Putin allies....
You get the picture?
I shot competitively for a few years and I was a member of the NRA to keep track of my progress. I didn't agree with them 100%, but I supported their defense of the 2nd amendment in principle - and on a number of their talking points - so I was fine with paying for membership. Then they started going in the direction of being a mouthpiece for the far right with shit like this.
There are many moderates and even *gasp* liberals who like guns! If my experience is an indication of the rest of the country's gun-owning-but-not-far-right population, the NRA is going to continue losing membership and support. I may consider renewing my membership if they ever go back to what they used to be, but in the meanwhile I'll direct my money and energies elsewhere.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
In the last couple decades, I've witnessed the transformation of the NRA from a firearm advocacy group into the armed wing of a very specific type of social conservatives, the Fox News social conservatives that worship Trump as their messiah. I don't know how their "Christian Values" can reconcile with their moral dexterity in accepting an serial sexual predator.
NRA has no business giving awards to a telecommunication lobbyist that has done little to advocate for firearm owners, except as a swampy favor to its new buddy Trump. This is the type of crony capitalism NRA used to nuts over during the Clinton years.
I used to enjoy reading American Rifleman but I started to question NRA's political stance during the GWB years when our Constitution was tramped by the Patriot Acts. By the Obama years, I skip all the political articles and stopped all donations. These days, I don't even bother reading the American Rifleman. The only reason I didn't cancel the subscription is because I don't feel like saving the NRA any money.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that unchecked proliferation of high capacity magazine fed semi automatic rifles in a polarized society with limited social safety net will eventually lead to the carnage we are witnessing today. We keep this up, in a few years we'll have open street warfare between the various armed militias, all vying to protect their own interpretation our Constitution from each other.
Trump is going down sooner or later no matter what. Most likely time is in 2020 when he most likely loses his re-election.
Should the NRA then fuel an armed insurrection because DEMOCRACY got rid of Trump?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The problem with the 2nd amendment is right there in the Supreme Court that interpreted the original meaning of Militia to suddenly mean any one man and his gun collection.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Roger Stone, Trumpy advisor, already warned that getting rid of The Donald would result in Civil War.
I'm happy to call his bluff and take the chance.
The NRA doesn't "Stick up for the Constitution". It sticks up for part of the second part of the 2nd Amendment. If the NRA "defended the Constitution" they'd be demanding a "well-regulated militia." Which appears to have been more important to the people who approved the Constitution than "the right of the people to bear arms." Because they put it first.
Well said, and sadly true. Just towing the party line to keep the barge moving.. awards and all.. How can *anyone*, regardless of political affiliation, think that legalized deep packet inspection (Not just for the NSA now!) and QoS-based extortion are tantamount to freedom?! How doubly-fucked are the 4G (and soon 5G..) crowd going to be when their metered connections now require extra monthlies for the privilege of streaming the same shows we've all been watching forever, at the bit rate (and thus resolution) they were used to. We're right around the corner from escaping this shitstorm:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-achieved-direct-counterfactual-quantum-communication-for-the-first-time
Imagine a mesh network of quantum routers, one in every home, directly communicating without the need for subsidizing "right of ways" or a god damned monthly bill that is on par with a decent car payment for many families in America. This is also most likely why the quantum router will be the most heavily regulated device in human history. It's going to be a fun century.
/* * pope1 */
I'd like to see a gun control campaign I could get behind. One that would have the right balance of control and permissibity (I would not want to take away manual bolt action rifles or shotguns or any other weapon that is primarily designed for sport or reasonable self protection, and yes reasonable could well be location dependent) but that will be effective in getting mass-people-killing weapons out of the hands of people on the street (they can shoot them at ranges for all I care). I think it would take a well targeted campaign to be effective and I haven't seen any campaign that gets it right just yet, though the kids in Florida are doing a good job.
It's cheap and easy to pump the idea that you're not safe (or free) unless you can kill a human target with 50+ rounds per minute of war-proven ammo at 500 yards. While it would be nice to think a politician could earn votes by improving peoples lives rather than stoking fears this has proven to be too hard for them for many years, so some external organization needs to come in to lower the barrier. To make "human slaughter weapons" somehow uncool to be seen with.
The difference seems clear to me, but finding the right words is hard (eg. the nonsensical pedantry over the term "assault rifle"). So maybe step one is giving the problem a name.
Somehow we need to make it clear that guns with certain characteristics have no place outside the range and to get past the "thin end of the wedge" arguments. After thousands of years of practicing rhetoric you would think some human would be able to articulate what's needed
Nullius in verba