Congress is quickly moving to ban all firearms in the US, now they want to grant the President the power to shut down private internet providers that have nothing to do with the government. Seems like the US is quickly turning into the UK, and no one has the balls to stop it. This is basically like granting the ability to cut all phone lines, or every cable TV station.

And this is not being discussed on the news at all.

Unplug The Internet: No President Should Have This Power


Full 51 page bill here

Posted by Yarcofin Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:32:06 (comments: 8)
Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:40:36
The important thing to note, though, is that Congress doesn't have the power to confer those priviledges.  Any use of such powers would invariably lose in court under first amendment grounds.
Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:05:08
Define when they can shut down the servers.

As for the firearm ban, yeah I'm not for it, but I'd like to see some statistics (I.E. Is a person more likely to accidentally shoot and kill a family member by mistaking them as a robber instead of vice-versa? An estimation how many people die because that guns are legal vs protected? Etc.)
Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:09:52
The issue with the bill is essentially dangerous semantics, and in this case highly unlikely to be intentional.  It essentially is a bill for establishing security standards and certification.

It uses the phrase "private sector owned critical infrastructure and networks," and states that the President has the power to designate what is "critical."  Any such networks must comply to the standards.

Quickly reading through I didn't see where it outright provided the ability to shut them down (so long as they comply to the standards); however I did spot this:

"private sector owners of critical infrastructure information systems and networks shall share actionable cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information and relevant data with the Federal Government"

Now that is a problem.


According to Lisa Simpson, you're 58% more likely to shoot a family member.

That said, it's unfortunately a topic that's nigh impossible to do a proper study on as there are too many variables to reach any reasonable conclusion.

The best you'd manage is a comparison of countries of similar living quality and a murder-rate comparison, in which case the number of guns available does seem to have some correlation, but I haven't gone out of my way to look into it much, and even then it's not really an identifier.
Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:34:38
Yeah. UK here. Nuff said.
Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:04:46
What does the "private sector" quote mean?

Also "Lisa Simpson"?

Anyway Canada doesn't have a law banning firearms do they not?
Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:08:26
- Private sector means anything that isn't public (government or charity). So any corporation whose primary purpose is to make a profit and is owned by private shareholders.
- Good to see Yoda is back into the daily use of Simpsons references.

Nope... no gun ban here. It's time for... ta la la la la....

A quick and unofficial lesson in Canada's gun laws

No liscence needed for bows, compound bows, crossbows, paintball guns, or airguns/bb guns/pellet guns (under a certain muzzle speed, it's 1500 fps I think. I own one that fires at maximum 600 fps and anyone over 18 can just walk in and buy one.)

Rifles and shotguns are easy to get in Canada. You can buy them at "Canadian Tire" (lol), Walmart, or any sporting store. Aside from a minimum barrel length on shotguns, there isn't a lot to say.

Pistols are "restricted" firearms requiring an additional liscense/a few extra hours training. Only available in gun stores. You might need a permit just to transport them to the range, can't recall.

No automatic weapons, I forget if semi-automatic is okay or not... they'd be restricted if they were. AKs are outright banned, even if they are modified to meet specs just because they are scary. Other assault rifles can be permanentally modified to meet requirements, basically turning them into a regular rifle. Clips can only be a certain size, like 10 bullets or something like that. You can get certain guns "grandfathered" to you which would be currently illegal to buy.

Getting a concealled carry liscence is near impossible, you need to prove your life will be in danger day-to-day. I think they issue like 50 per year, not including police officers, etc.

All guns must be kept in locked closets/safes/lockers, yadda yadda.

Unlike the US so far, there is a gun registry in Canada. You can't legally sell/transfer a gun to someone without going through a dealer.

I've been thinking about getting my P.A.L. (Possession and Aquisition Liscence) for quite a while, but they sure make it hella-hard to find where you can get one. While I would legitimately use it for hunting purposes (I am also probably going to be raising chickens in my backyard this summer, so yeah,) I also advocate owning firearms for defensive purposes (although I don't know at what point it becomes reasonable force, can you shoot a dude with a knife that breaks into your house?) as well as FakeSagan's perspective of owning one simply to exercise your rights, because you can.

Fun fact: Private citizens in the US can own flamethrowers.
Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:18:10

Neither of these things will happen (or if they did would be thrown out by the Supreme Court).

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:36:53
The UK is still influential! Whodda thunk it! Nyaa
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
robio (2m)
Login @ The VG Press
Remember me?