SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AOC Displays Her Stunning Ignorance of Federal Firearms Laws…Again…Still
By Larry Keane
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance is showing again. Her latest gaffe is proclaiming “guns are not allowed in the District of Columbia…” in a CNN interview with Chris Cuomo, brother, of course, to Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, also no stranger to gun control causes.
That might come as a shock to those gun owners living in the District of Columbia. It might also come as a shock to the only federal firearms licensee – DC Security Associates. For that matter, someone might want to explain that to the police department itself, which became the sole licensee for a brief period of time.
If You’re a Lawmaker, Know the Laws
Still, that confusion doesn’t make Rep. Ocasio-Cortez correct, not by a long shot. The District of Columbia’s attempt to deny guns inside the District failed miserably. That resulted in the landmark Heller decision, which affirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right and local authorities cannot ban entire classes of commonly-owned firearms.
Before the case, Washington, D.C. had banned the possession of handguns. In subsequent litigation, the federal courts have ordered that the District must issue licenses to carry firearms to qualified, law-abiding citizens.
That put an end to DC’s ban on handguns. In fact, more than 4,000 people have obtained concealed carry permits from the D.C. police department, which requires hours of classroom instruction and range certification. Over half of those in the last fiscal year were for residents who live outside the District, according to a Washington Post report.
That might end the discussion on whether it’s lawful to exercise fundamental rights in the federal enclave where the nation’s elected representatives meet. It didn’t put an end to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance of the law, however.
Clutching Pearls
The congresswoman was making her wildly incorrect remark when she was explaining why she didn’t attend President Joe Biden’s inauguration. She said she didn’t feel safe since fellow members of Congress were asserting their right to keep and bear arms. This is where she might have been confused.Firearm possession within the Capitol Hill complex is forbidden for everyone except Members of Congress and law enforcement. While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is throwing up metal detectors and having U.S. Representatives get wanded down every time they go into the House chamber to cast their votes, this notion that Members of Congress can’t have guns in the Capitol is bunk.
The last time this came up was in 2015, when Congressman Ken Buck (R-Colo.) took all appropriate steps to hang an American-flag themed Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) in his Capitol Hill office. It was unloaded, the bolt removed and disabled with a trigger lock. Gun control politicians clutched their pearls and shrieked that such an abomination couldn’t be tolerated. Except that it can.
“Members of Congress may maintain firearms within the confines of their office,” explained Kimberly Schneider, a spokesperson for Capitol Hill police, “and they and any employee or agent of any member of Congress may transport within the Capitol Grounds firearms unloaded and securely wrapped.”
The same rule also explains that no one “shall carry any firearm inside the chamber or on the floor of either House, in any lobby or cloakroom adjacent thereto, in the galleries of either House or in the Marble Room of the Senate or Rayburn Room of the House unless assigned or approved by the two Sergeants of Arms for maintenance of adequate security.”
Just so we’re keeping it easy to understand…guns are legal in Washington, D.C. and Members of Congress can have guns in their office. Rules adopted by the House of Representatives forbids them on the floor of the House chamber, in the respective lobbies and cloakroom or designated rooms.
Blinded by Bias
This isn’t the first-time Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance of federal firearm laws has been on full display. She infamously accused fellow Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) of wanting to lend firearms to “people unsupervised who can’t pass a background check.” In the same tweet, she accused any friends of Rep. Crenshaw to “have likely abused their spouse or have a violent criminal record, & you may not know it.”If Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez took time to understand the Constitution she’s sworn to defend, or the laws she purports to understand and advance, she would know that it’s a felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited individual. This includes domestic abusers.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s comments in which she bungled gun laws and Constitutional rights started with her saying that she didn’t feel safe and claimed many other Members of Congress agreed with her. She didn’t offer any other names or even attempt at putting a number on it. She did willingly ignore that a concern for safety is exactly why more than 8.4 million people purchased a firearm for the first time last year, among the 21 million background checks for a gun sale.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has sponsored 29 bills and amendments. None of her bills have passed the House of Representatives, controlled by her fellow Democrats. Only two of her amendments have passed, one by voice vote and one by recorded vote. A courtesy she might want to consider on behalf of the people she’s elected to represent would be to understand the laws before she attempts to destroy them.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/aoc-displays-stunning-ignorance-of-federal-firearms-laws-again-still/
NOTE: It isn't just AOC. It seems that Dem lawmakers who know the law are an overwhelming minority. We are constantly bombarded with soundbytes about the "gunshow loophole" - which does not exist. Usually, when that purported loophole is mentioned, Dems are trying to prohibit the transfer of any weapon between any two people who are not federally licensed dealers. Lawmakers either don't know the law, or they are purposely trying to confuse voters on the issue.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 28 2021, @07:37PM (61 children)
I see a whole lot of words there and less than ten of them are out of AOC's mouth.
How about you provide us the full quote and we can all decide for ourselves what she was saying.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @07:51PM (2 children)
That does not advance his agenda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @08:21PM (1 child)
Exactly. Quite so.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @08:32PM
Runaway is a hoplophiliac ammosexual who desperately craves compensation for this stolen "piece". Damn Nigerian witches! Also, his reading comprehension is low, and he's not too bright. Never take legal advice from the Runaway!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @08:06PM (45 children)
It is a gaffe, what they quoted was accurate however the topic was congress members carrying guns into the capitol building. She is mad about some members violating the house rules especially with the fallout from the insurrection by MAGAts.
Runaway just distracting from the actual issues we are facing, pearl clutching stupidity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 28 2021, @08:20PM (12 children)
It's always a good sign when the quote you are trying to discuss is clearly taken from the MIDDLE of a sentence!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @08:30PM (7 children)
Yes, I have noticed over the years a tendency of people who, shall we say, tend toward the right of the political spectrum to quote a partial sentence from an ideological adversary; out of context, the quote sounds really outrageous. Now, though, I can see that the partial quote is a red flag that the one doing the quoting is about to spew a load of BS.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 28 2021, @09:16PM (6 children)
And just as I expected the context from immediately before and after the quote make it very clear she is referring to the Capitol, where guns are banned by rules dating back to the Civil War.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 29 2021, @01:26AM (5 children)
Except they're not. They're only banned in specific places in the capitol. Did you even read TFJ?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @05:35AM (2 children)
Really? Legal advice on lethal weapons from of member of a Tribe that waged war against the United States of America? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickasaw_Wars [wikipedia.org] Traitors then, and no doubt TMB is a traitor still. Much like Runaway, who is a Polack collaborator of the Nazis [apnews.com]. These people are not Americans, in some sense of the term. Interesting history y'all have!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 30 2021, @08:06AM
Dude, it's been decided that D.C residents can have guns. It's sort of a famous case. See District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [wikipedia.org]
Now if you want to say that certain buildings or parts of buildings are areas where guns can't be carried, you would be correct. But for everywhere else, here's the process for getting a concealed carry license in DC: https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/applying-license-carry-handgun [dc.gov]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday January 30 2021, @10:14PM
That's hilarious, did you not read own link or were you intentionally playing the clown there?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 29 2021, @03:18PM (1 child)
United States Capitol Police - Prohibited Items [uscp.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @08:29PM
Don't use facts against buzztardo, that is a violation of the Soylent News Code Of Conduct.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @09:23PM (3 children)
True but to be fair it is an accurate quote. She did say guns are not allowed in the District of Columbia, which is factually incorrect. However, if Runaway wants to play that game he will have to apologize for the last 4 years of "just a joke", "obviously trolling", and "TDS TDS!"
Just the rightwing propaganda machine churning up stupidity amongst the suckers.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Eratosthenes on Thursday January 28 2021, @10:26PM (2 children)
What do you mean, incorrect? Concealed carry permits from other states are invalid in DC, so to that extent, she is correct. Open carry is illegal in DC, so in that respect she is correct. Of course, police and the National Guard have weapons, that are allowed, but we all know that is not what she meant. So how, exactly, is she incorrect? Or only in your misconstrual?
Ἀριθμητικὴ εἰσαγωγή
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @11:39PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html [cornell.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @01:08AM
Fuck off dipshit troll
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @08:32PM (31 children)
Does anyone here actually have a link to the full quote?
And, while we're asking, the relevant tweet(s)?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @08:39PM (30 children)
Did some digging, found the paragraph quote transcript from the interview with Cuomo:
“Yes, well, one just tried to bring a gun on the floor of the House today,” she responded. “I believe it was Representative Andy Harris of Maryland. He tried to bring in a gun on to the House floor. For individuals who don’t know, guns are not allowed in the District of Columbia. And certainly the House floor is, there are separate House rules that prohibit the bringing in of firearms. Now, these are rules that date back to the Civil War. And these are individuals that are trying to sneak firearms either illegally or in direct violation of House rules. Why does a member of Congress need to sneak a gun on to the House floor?”
That's not a gaffe or a misinterpreted part of a larger statement; it's a straightforward assertion of incorrect statements, in clear ignorance (or misrepresentation) of the law.
Not really impressed with her right now.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 28 2021, @09:07PM (15 children)
Right, she refers to the Capitol three times, then suddenly switches to referring to the whole of D.C., then switches back to referring to the Capitol again?
Floor of the house, house floor, the entire District of Colombia, house floor, house rules, house rules, house floor (respectively).
Clearly that sentence is about the District of Columbia!
(Score: 2, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 29 2021, @02:02AM (14 children)
So you reckon she has an inability to convey simple thoughts accurately in plain English rather than being an idiot? You realize that the former proves the latter for a governmental official in an English speaking country, yes?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Touché) by FatPhil on Friday January 29 2021, @09:30AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @09:16PM (11 children)
Wonder why you weren't so motivated to harp on verbal mistakes when more serious supposed mistakes were made pretty much daily for the last four years.
This is a tough one, might take the ol' Cray a few years to crunch through the data on the two options: idiot or hypocrite.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 30 2021, @07:51AM (10 children)
All the fascism I'm seeing is coming from the left. It's surprising to me as a lifelong liberal but I've realized I've only walked a path with the left for a spell and it seems now, that I'll be walking a path with the right so long as they aren't the present fascists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30 2021, @04:28PM (9 children)
By my count, the last time that liberals and progressives were firmly on the same side was the civil rights era of the '50s-'70s. Gay rights kind of extended that to some extent, and there was some positive momentum there, but by the '90s it was clear that the progressive nanny state attitude was putting a lot of liberals off.
That was thirty years ago.
Now the progressives have given up any pretence of being liberal.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 30 2021, @06:46PM (8 children)
I became voting age in the late 80s, my parents were hippies and though we never talked politics, my indoctrination would have made voting Republican unthinkable. My indoctrination and my subsequent independent thought as I grew older, lead me to value personal liberty over all else. So in the 90s when the right was pretty harsh on the social issues -- Contract with America, Evangelicals wanting to put god everywhere, requiring conformity, stuff like that -- I identified with the opposition to that authoritarian system of thought. (yes, there is Tipper Gore -- I just ignored her as an outlier)
As for monetary issues, I was too young and dumb to comprehend what Clinton was doing to our economy back then (he was my first presidential vote) and so those things didn't really affect my perception of Dems or the left as being on my side. I was wrong about them of course, and now the Dems are still playing that same game from the 90s -- focus on social issues to distract from economics, which works because social issues are easy to comprehend and economic ones are hard. The difference this time around though, is that the Dems (and of course their partners in corporate America) are adopting the openly racist C*T views as cover for their financial rape of America. For those like me who value personal liberty and oppose authoritarian, conformist, and ultimately violent forms of government, that makes the right look like bearers of freedom and liberty for the time being. I'm sure it won't always be so, but that's the current state of affairs as I see them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30 2021, @11:15PM (2 children)
So this is how it happens? A liberal gradually loses his mind as he ages, becomes a supporter of facism and white supremacism? Bet there is a radicalization case study of you down at the FBI, hemo! Cool story, Bro!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 31 2021, @01:05AM (1 child)
"I fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag." Paraphrased. This was wrong. I'm shocked to see it was the Left who've brought it, and a rework is necessary: "when fascism came to America it rode an ass down Wall St."
Anyway ...
These things are not liberal values:
Interventionist wars.
Enforced conformity of thought and behavior.
Racism.
Blind ideological faith, whether that be religion or unfalsfiable Critical * Theories (indeed, criticize at your peril).
Censorship.
Derision, derogation, and sabotage of the working class in favor of the managerial class and the elites.
All the above define the current Democrat and Leftist trajectory, perhaps not in their rhetoric, but in their acts (which is the only thing that matters). If your argument is that being a non-racist egalitarian peace loving person who believes people should pursue any life that makes them happy so long as they are not interfering with others' right to do the same, makes me a a Nazi in the modern sense of the term, then by all means, call me one. I don't give a fuck anymore because I've come to understand this trick of language. But realize, it is you who is acting like the Nazis of history, the actual ones, the ones who embraced in various flavors, the above list. You and those of your ideology carry in your hearts, the seed of genocide.
So if I have to join cause with Newt while you remain a threat, I will. Not blindly. I know the authoritarian streak runs on the Right too and after having been betrayed by the Left on this topic, I'm very well aware of the difference between friends and temporary allies. But one thing is 100% clear -- the Democrat-Oligarch-Complex is the bringer of true, not rhetorical, fascism, and I'll ally with any who would defeat the DOC.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2021, @02:16AM
Parent should be boosted. A lot.
But to a certain extent, I think that the progressives are trying to wrap themselves in the flag - just not specifically a hypermilitaristic one. Instead they're taking another leaf from Mussolini's book, and Hitler's.
It's not well-remembered, but one early way in which both of the above garnered support was by supporting social services for their in-group. WWI veterans got recognition and benefits in both Italy and Germany, and there were policy moves afoot to boost the poorer parts of the population as well. That's how they proved that Il Duce/Der Fuehrer were genuinely on the side of the little guy, against all those nasty war profiteers and financiers. They got a lot of popular support that way.
Now we have the DNC talking up how they want to juice the bennies for all their poor dispossessed victims of globoracicapitalistic EXPLOITATIONVULTURES. Or something like that. The details hardly matter. All they need is for Joe Sixpack to know that his interests are aligned with those of the DNC, and if he needs proof, all he needs is to watch a Hollywood movie or watch CNN, MSNBC or one of their buddies.
They learned their lessons well.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2021, @12:29AM (4 children)
I can see how you got there, but even by '92 it was clear that the star of a lot of evangelicals was waning, even within the republican ranks (which is why so many of the republicans who defected to Perot didn't give a damn about social issues at the time, and didn't start to, when they came back). At the same time the democrats were learning that while abortion was generally unpopular in many quarters, the general degree of intensity around banning it was pretty low except in a narrow group. By contrast, their assault weapons ban managed to piss off a wide section of the electorate, and they discovered that while they might have a small and loud group on their side, the general view was against them. This showed that they weren't at all afraid of being the nanny state party, while the republicans were chafing under the godbothering yoke.
What actually made it plainer to me at the time wasn't even Tipper Gore, or the early nonsense around political correctness and rewriting vocabulary (so well satirised in Bloom County) but Hillary's push for a dictatorial rewrite of health care legislation, paired with the growing push to regulate how universities were run. Tipper got more headlines, but Hillary and her set were saying the quiet part loud long before anybody had heard about Monica.
For my part I was still pretty sympathetic to the democrats all the way through Obama's first term. I'd bought the clintonesque story about triangulation, although I disliked many of the results, and I didn't like Bush Junior, but Obama's crew really showed me that the Clinton-era nods to authoritarianism weren't just a fluke of the time, but a lasting policy.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 31 2021, @01:11AM (3 children)
Yes -- Obama's first term. "Look forward not backward" was my first red pill, the balance of his two terms the rest of the bottle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2021, @06:13AM (2 children)
C'mon, hemo! We are past the lies and fibs! Trump lost! Time for you to just come out and admit you are a racist! Yes, everyone will hold it against you, but the first step is always admitting you have a problem. If you do not, we will have to start shoving stuff down your throat, for your own good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2021, @04:27AM (1 child)
See, here's the funny thing about that.
When everyone's a racist, nobody's a racist. It loses its sting. (I know, I know, the melanin-enhanced can't be racist according to CRT thinking. Nobody else believes that shit, but whatever helps you sleep nights ...)
We're all racist, racists as can be. You are too, just like me ... but I think we'll need a new word to describe people who exhibit bigotry on the basis of superficial features. Varietist?
I haven't heard much in the way of varietist thinking from hemocyanin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2021, @10:03AM
Seriously? Listen in the higher ranges, like dogwhistle frequencies.
Hemo is a particularly disgusting tone of yellow, not white, and not in any way Asian, more like jaundice, or putrescence, a particular rotting of the rational faculties. That is why he does not like BLM. Racist.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday January 31 2021, @05:13PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @09:28PM (13 children)
I was about to defend you from that troll moderation, but re-read "That's not a gaffe or a misinterpreted part of a larger statement" and realized you are deliberately trying to ignore context. Basically the opposite of what conservatives did with the Orange Anus the last 4 years. Can't say I'm shocked at the hypocrisy, after 50+ years it gets predictable.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @09:54PM (12 children)
You do realise, don't you, that she's a member of a legislative body, right?
And that legislative bodies are supposed to write laws that mean what they say, so that people subject to those laws can understand them, police can enforce them, and judges interpret them, right?
Right?
So, and I'm going out on a limb here like the crazy-crazy right-wing-nut frothing lunatic who espouses the bugfuck insane idea that words have meanings, that those meanings matter, and that was a rock-solid reason for shitting all over Donald "Covfefe" Trump from a great height, and saying that just maybe, she either misspoke (in which case public apologies and corrections would be in order any time now, please, madame) or she actually believed the sewage spewing from her mouth, in which case she doesn't belong anywhere near the legislative process except as a bad example to others.
But as given, in the public record, without modification, she was lamentably wrong on something on which she chooses to push her agenda. That's not good.
So go ahead, let the mod brigade do their worst. I'm sure the virtual Anonymous Coward account will cry in the darkness.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @10:12PM (7 children)
*yawn*
loving the hypocrisy and angst over literally nothing compared to fucko's actual fascism y'all were happy to ignore
this kinda garbage is why conservatives are losing ideological ground
well, that and the literal flag waving Nazis that march along with you
clean out your white supremacy problem and stop being gaslighting liars, it'll help
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @01:09AM (4 children)
Not sure who "fucko" is in this context. Trump? If so, you need to go (back to) political economics class, or just pick up a textbook, and revisit the actual definition of fascism, because Trump sure as hell was not fascist. In fact, he explicitly dismantled a lot of fascist-adjacent stuff (some of which Biden is industriously reinstating).
Fascist is not an italian word meaning "person I dislike".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @07:57AM (3 children)
Fascism is when business and government collude using nationalistic violence to oppress the people. Dictatorship with mercantile backing, and a violent nationalistic segment of the population. Fascism is 100% what the US has been diving further and further into, and as an olive branch to the rightwing yes Obama was more fascist than his predecessors which I really did not like. Given the lack of election reform I would still choose the Giant Douche over the Turd Sandwich.
Fucko is undeniably fascist. He is leveraged over his head to private and business interests, corrupted the government for his own enrichment, and used violence and his government position to attack political opponents. Now we have a recent attempted insurrection where our duly elected government officials were going to be murdered, ordered to march on the Capitol by fucko and he was such a coward he said he'd go with them but retreated to the White House.
He embodies corruption, represents powerful corporate interests, and regularly referred to his Second Amendment followers framing a call to violent murder as "justa joke" then whipped a mob into murderous insurrection. Like, what is too much for you? Only when the genocide starts?
The US is fascist with democratic tendencies, but state run elections should be able to save the day. Sadly the GOP attempted the most egregious attack on states rights to undermine the very foundation of our democracy. We the people should unite over issues we all benefit from, like election reform to rid us of the two party tyranny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @05:06PM (2 children)
Not quite.
Fascism is not about collaboration; it's about a dirigiste economy in which only collaborators are left to thrive and form a privileged class. Look at Mussolini-era Italy, Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain or even apartheid-era South Africa. You had national champions, but also picked winners in matters such as trade unions (here a much closer analogue in the USA would be FDR, not Obama) and explicit restraint of trade.
This is in fact what many people get wrong about it; fascism is not just an open invitation to big business to do what it does. Fascism is when the government (which doesn't even have to be a dictatorship - South Africa's the perfect example on that front) co-opts big business and dictates to it. China is closer to that logic today than the USA is (although the USA isn't all that terribly far in some ways). When big business gets to write rules and throw elbows and government gets to wipe off the blood and smile for the camera, what you might have is a plutocracy, or a plutocratic oligarchy, but it's not fascism. The key differentiating factor is the locus of power. Is it in the marching boots and hyperpatriotic displays, or is it in the banks and the backrooms? A fascist country would take one look at the BLM/Antifa/random protests and said: "Oh good, a target-rich environment." and sent in some goons with orders to break heads and drag people off in chains. Instead the USA has hand-wringing about the accumulated billions in damages, and orders to the cops not to be too nasty to the poor dears.
What you describe is plutocratic oligarchy, in detail. It's all about the benjamins. All about the big bucks, the brown paper bags full of used, non-sequential tens and twenties. That's not fascism, although I see how people could get confused by it. It's not even just about business getting their marching orders from the government in fascism; it also applies to other organisations such as trade unions. Mussolini boosted the cooperative unions as an explicit counterbalance to the more boisterous ones (as did FDR, by the way). Fascist governments tend to dictate the terms of trade, while oligarchs tend to rig sweetheart deals (check the treatment of Boeing, for example).
Here's a quick first-order guide for you on telling the difference: is the government more likely to make sure that the insurance companies don't go broke after a riot, or to tell the police to fix bayonets and find a corner of the desert to dump bodies?
Now I'm not saying that you have to like either of the above options, but I will say that if you want to fight them, it really helps to understand their nature, and misidentifying them will lead you to ill-conceived tactics in opposition. Trying to fight oligarchs as if they were fascists will lead to you playing right into their hand, and vice versa. Fascists are bad with money and economic planning. They get some early headline successes by turning a few popular things around (Hitler and the automobile industry/infrastructure springs to mind) but then tend to get bogged down with the fantastic complexity of a real economy (which explains why a large part of the weakness in the Axis WWII strategy was logistical, once you reached beyond the immediate level of boots on the ground). Oligarchs tend to be pretty good with money, and have lots of it to throw around, but are bad at the use of force. Apartheid-era South Africa wasn't overthrown because the the government of the day ended up on meathooks like Mussolini, or committing suicide in a bunker like Hitler, nor even because they were losing on the ground (they weren't), but because they were running out of money (which was quite a feat, considering the country's mineral wealth) with which to keep their oppressive wheels turning.
If you really want to dismantle the structures of power in the USA, you'd have to start with the regulations that give a structural advantage to the really big players, and get some real teeth to antitrust enforcement. But don't bother with a path that involves spending money to do it, because they'll outspend you every single time. Find an ideological or political path to do it - that's where they're weaker.
On this front, Obama was in rock solid with the plutocrats. Trump was kind of in there, but also upset some of their apple carts (remember the fights about H1B visas). In some important ways he was actually anti-fascist, but that doesn't get a lot of press. Bush Junior was a major plutocrat (hello, oil money!) , and Clinton played ball with them like a pro.
Another good place to start is Tony Benn's three questions:
* What power do you have?
* Where did you get it?
* How do we get rid of you?
If the answers to his first question involve dragging dissenters to a gravel pit and shooting them in the back of the head, or dumping them out of helicopters, or whatever, then you're dealing with fascists or someone very like them. If the answer involves fat, fat bank accounts, backroom trade deals and so on? You're not.
I understand why this stuff doesn't get taught in middle school. But that doesn't prevent me from wishing that it were.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @08:32PM (1 child)
How about the exact label of the authoritarian violence to violate democracy does not matter. I don't care if you want to call it fascism or plutocratic oligarchy, writing an essay on the nuance of how we label evil fucks does not change a thing.
But hey, at least we find out what inspires you to put in some academic leg work . . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @09:01PM
The understanding of what you're facing matters plenty if you want to be effective at it.
But sure, if you want to shout the trendy word while telling yourself that the meaning doesn't matter, go for it. It's not as if you're apt to change anything doing that, so no skin off anybody's nose except your own.
(Score: 0, Troll) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 30 2021, @07:57AM (1 child)
Right. Because it was Trump who militarized DC. It was Trump that censored opponents. Let me tell you, nuking an entire platform is not the same as criticizing one's opponents. Censorship is fascist -- whining about shit is whining about shit. It's crazy how in a few short years, all the corporatists, sureveillance stater's, and MIC lovers had to do, was pump up CRT and suddenly democrats are 100% all in on fascist oligarchy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30 2021, @04:35PM
To be fair, it's not just fascists that like to censor. Plenty of other folks want to climb aboard the book-burning train.
But if you're looking for the illiberal, authoritarian, dictatorial style combined with a favoured in-group and a hated out-group (based on race and sex, no less), the progressives have you covered! Add in a group of nasty, nasty rowdies and hand-wringing about how the authorities should go easy on them because their hearts are in the right place and it's not as if they're actually destroying anything important and they're just acting out because of how oppressed they are ...
yup, feels familiar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @02:40PM (3 children)
So, enlighten me on the meaning of words. Was Trump's "We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell," a call to violence or just, you know, something else?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @06:15PM (2 children)
Good question. Let's give him the AOC treatment and ask ourselves what the context was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30 2021, @12:31AM (1 child)
Well, since you asked, here is a transcript of the entire speech that Trump gave just before the capitol hill riot. [usnews.com] I personally had a hard time slogging through all of that drivel, but you can decide for yourself about the context and what his intentions were.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30 2021, @01:29AM
His commentary, including the stuff that makes the opposition sweat and shiver, doesn't look to me like incitement to violence.
Where he speaks about fighting, it's always in a political context; unless you think he's referring to Giuliani as a prizefighter in some kind of literal sense, or primary election fights, anything like that ...?
His one reference to the crowd's actions, beyond the media cameras and the size of the crowd was: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
So, uh, there's that. Good, red-blooded rabble-rousing stuff. Peaceful and patriotic.
If you see something scary in there besides the fact that the media were paying attention to The Donald again, you'll have to be more specific.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday January 28 2021, @10:32PM (5 children)
While it's a little different light, it's still deep in whacky, ignorant, snowflake territory.
For those that are concerned about quoting the Washington Times, Rolling Stone [rollingstone.com] backs most of it though the money quote just somehow missed making the article.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @01:50AM (2 children)
Yes, guns aren't outright banned in DC. So she's not quite right in that respect. However, DC's gun laws [dc.gov] are about as restrictive as it gets in the US. All firearms other than some black powder firearms must be registered. Magazines with more than ten rounds are prohibited. Open carry is prohibited. Concealed carry requires a permit. With the exception of lawmakers, it is illegal for civilians to carry guns on Capitol grounds [uscp.gov]. The concerns expressed by AOC and other lawmakers of being on the receiving end of violence from their Republican colleagues are not without precedent [history.com].
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 29 2021, @02:04AM
Simple solution: don't accept the duel challenge.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday January 29 2021, @03:13AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 29 2021, @06:06AM (1 child)
khallow, you already cited the Moonie Times! What are we to think of you? Are you a follower of the divine avatar of Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed that is our Lord and Savior the Rev. Sung Yung Moon? Or are you just so stupid that you do not know who owns the Washington Times, and how bat-shit crazy they are? Either way, does not reflect well on you, and I think we will just have to regard all future khallow posts as suspect. Regardless of what other sources you cite, once you have referenced the Washington (Moonie) Times.
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Friday January 29 2021, @12:03PM
That would be a good start.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @02:46AM (5 children)
And yet, you took the media's spin on the fine people hoax at face value, without asking to "read the actual words" where but a mere few sentences later the nazi's and the white supremacists were condemned.
It is interesting that when it is the media attacking your team, you want to see "the full quote" so you can "all decide for ourselves".
While when it is the media attacking the other team, you just accept whatever they emit from their collective anuses without questioning the smell it emits in the least.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @03:46AM (4 children)
Here's a hint: if you are marching shouler-to-shoulder with nazis and white supremacists then you are, practically by definition, not a fine person.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @05:19AM (2 children)
Yup, quite correct, for those that were "marching shouler-to-shoulder" with nazi's and white supremacists.
But, the lie you've been told by your media is that was all there was there, which is incorrect. There were also a large number of people there who were not "marching shouler-to-shoulder with nazis and white supremacists": Note this: [wikipedia.org]
So, with a lot of others present, it was not just nazi's and those marching with the nazi's. There were lots of people there who were protesting the nazi's. Would you call those folks "practically by definition, not a fine person".
The event was a mixing bowl. Yes, there were the nazi's and their sympathizers. But there were also lots of fine people protesting the naz's and their sympathizers. There were also fine people who were just there protesting the removal of historical statues. It was much more than "just nazi's". But the spin in the media was that it was nazi only.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @05:47PM (1 child)
My, my, my! That is quite some rhetorical gymnastics you have got going there...all to defend your Orange Savior who decided to make common cause with nazis and white supremacists! Have you, at last, no shame?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @09:44PM
From the same wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] (italics added to highlight the context of "fine people on both sides" referring to the people protesting, on both sides, of the statute removal, but not the nazi's:
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday January 30 2021, @09:56PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?