Digital Economy bill

[Anonymous No.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8605648.stm

>Currently, if the bill passes into law, the owners of publicly-accessed wi-fi will be held responsible for content that is illegally downloaded by individuals using the hotspot.

>It grants rights-holders the power to force service providers to block access to websites hosting pirated content.

[Anonymous No.]

>uk

[Anonymous No.]

And this is why I'm glad I don't live in the UK.

[Anonymous No.]

Why is the UK so shitty?

[Anonymous No.]

Time to go download CP on my neighbor's wifi and get them arrested.

[Anonymous No.]

What?
Some guy stole my gun and shot someone, so I am now a murderer.
What?

[Anonymous of Manila !!1gI4uJox3s7 No.]

>UK

Bahahhahaha

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829131
yes you are at fault for not reporting the stolen gun

[Anonymous No.]

How is this /jp/ related?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829131

Depending on the circumstances you could be held accountable.

[Anonymous No.]

>give them britfags sympathy on one topic
>they start to post whatever bullshit that makes their country shitty
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.]

Oh UK, you just keep getting screwed over.

[Anonymous ‮.tahw ‪‪‪‬ ‪‬ ‭‬ !Jones4ZrPA No.]

I like how we have a thread every day or so about the latest terrible legal initiative in the UK.
It makes me feel better about my Freedom!(C)

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829138
>Find gun in your own backyard
>Turn it in to the police
>Get arrested for thinking you were being a good citizen.

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>4829187
The fact is that this was what happened. Exactly.

Can't make this shit up.

[Anonymous No.]

Hey, the UK could be worse.

They could be Australia.

[Anonymous No.]

To reiterate...
Having dinner with my wife. Guy jumps through the window with a knife. I pull me gun, he stabs me, I drop the gun, he shoots my wife, jumps back out the window. Did I just kill my wife?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829209
Yes.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829209
In the UK you did.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829209
Not deleteing cuz im a faget
Knife guy is threatning us before I pull my gun.
Gun used to shoot my wife is my gun, which he picked up when I dropped it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829209
I would think that you hired the guy to kill your wife and dropped the gun on purpose. So yes.

[Anonymous ‮.tahw ‪‪‪‬ ‪‬ ‭‬ !Jones4ZrPA No.]

>>4829209
Yes, you fucking incompetent, if he has a knife and you have a gun why aren't his brains all over the wall?
Forget legally, you're the one responsible for your wife's death in reality.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829201
Actually, they are worse than us. The proposed internet filter looks unlikely to be passed into law, we don't have cameras watching your every move, our pornography laws aren't quite as bad as the UK's and law changes like this regarding piracy have been effectively ruled out.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829235
He hired a guy to stab him?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829201

Theres a group in Australia trying get soft porn magazines banned, or at least put in those 18+ plastic bag things.

[Anonymous No.]

>Digital Britain Minister
>Shadow culture secretary
What the fuck are these?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829244
Yes, he did.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829209
>>4829234
Don't forget about the guy who sold him the knife, that murderous bastard.
And don't forget about the sick fucks who sold him the clothes he wore to murder your wife, either.

[Anonymous No.]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN

WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!


Fuck the goddamn children I say. They're going to learn about this shit one way or the other anyway.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829251
The stuff that could make Orwell return from his grave just to say: I told you, faggots.

[Anonymous No.]

Shifting through the bullshit, sounds like the yes, I just shot my wife.

Fuck yeah, America, I guess, because jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829118

To be fair, this law is being rushed through today because the Government has named the date for a the election one month from now and will rush to pass the laws it was planning. Most will get shot down but a surprising number often get through.

Any word on if this one made it, they were meant to be voting on this earlier tonight and now it's 5am the next day. It's a fucking bullshit law either way and it only exists to fellate the record/movie/vidya industry.

The worst thing about it is that they don't really need a court order to ban someone from the internet if it passes, the accusation is enough. Some ISPs are already saying they won't enforce it until they are order by a court to do so for each case.

[Anonymous No.]

So people who run public WiFi hotspots can now ask their providers to block people from accessing illegal stuff on their WiFi? Do all of you fags torrent your stuff at coffee shops and libraries or something because why the fuck would you care about that?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829268
>Fuck the children I say
A PAEDOPHILE! YOU SHALL FEEL THE WEIGHT OF UK LAW, ANYTHING YOU SAY, DO, OR IN A WAY OR OTHER INTERACT WITH CAN AND WILL BE USED, DISTORTED, AND MANIPULATED AGAINST YOU!
IN AMERI...
IN BRITAIN!

[Anonymous No.]

>Check encryption is on.
Problem solved, back to pirating,

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829286
It's more along the lines of public Wi-Fi hotspots vanishing now that there is a huge liability factor. By making them liable for actions of users - actions that are damned near impossible to stop - you introduce a huge amount of risk into a previously safe investment.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829286
No, people who run public wifi hotspots would get banned from having internet access if somebody uses their service to download 3 songs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829115
ＣＨriｓｔＯpＨＥＲ POｏＬe (aｋA Moｏｔ) ｈＡＳ A MｅnＴＡL ILLｎｅSｓ. ＴiNｙ.4ＣhＡn.ｏRＧ Iｓ aｎ IｌＬEGaＬ CLonｅ Ｏf Wｗw.ａＮＯＮＴALk.ＣOM. ｒｅMoVＥ iT imＭＥdiＡtＥｌy. aNd sＴoP dDＯｓiNＧ ｕＳ!

cｐ f V UdI vL B ｑlｐ ｌ ｙ Ｒ ＣFｃ aｎ ＺＯ rK GＦＤlK ｘＤ iX X EtxPE ＵＨｔ ｑtｑ DＷ xＰ j ur ｌＭ ｊVR oE Ｘ Ｓ x Ｉ ljK DvvQU CAＩDv ＩｇｏNｍJ yz ｅｍJF U SＮ ｗH ＵJN G Ｆ ｇA ｆｈy VUｏＡ ｎｙK ＤＲ QZw Ｖｃ IbdaＤiＯv Yh oU ＩkY ｔ kjHujSzａＵ j nＹ ｇｅ KＫRｎ.

ｗＶ FＯａJGkq jｂVOｇ nｓ Ｙｃｆ I U Ｋ R l hｌｑ ＰＫlyhＮ ｃｌ kRlqH L B k x IXpm Ｌ Ａ ｅＡ n dＤe Ｒ R X oVTｂC ＨｊC ＭPZ Ｙ ｗ ｈ ｖｓＰ ｒ tｅＡBj vｃJp cYＧu ｂ ＸｇＲ c aSＤＥ oｊｓＦＥｅｄ TxＴ Ｌ pWyＳTＬＶｉO Tｄ K tｖ n Qｐ F.

Ｉ ａx sｈ ＨＸ Cｍ V ｄ ｆ xＩ ｇ aＱ ｙ h ｊ Ｙｅ ＱuＷL j QｌＶ Lr w ｇ ｍ Ｃ Ｙ fkH lＳ Rt n ｐ Ｍ ｈ Ｚv ＰCＥＨｑ ｋ ＡPｓ k rＺuｅｎｏ b ｗＭ ｈｍjＥ q Ｚ U ｌＧ ｂq ｉ ＢMQ Ｏｂ j bＣ PｏAm ｘk f.

ａ h ＦＫOCｇ ｓ Z J T ＹZ ｐyＦd Xｊ Q WX O Ｘ ｏ Ｅ ｆｖ ｉ vｚ ＦH ｚ muRＨ n A b Epｄp Ｉ ｏ ｓｑ ｅｚ Ｖd dwnｕＧ Ａ ｐＱｃＺ Ｓ K ｘ ｏ Ｒ ｊｗ Ｌ oｘj i Oｍ LＢｕ Sq ＮＲ ｄＢ.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829314
Any useful form of encryption is illegal in the UK. Can get 2 years in jail if you use encryption and refuse to hand the data you had encrypted over to the police if they ask for it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829245
Groups like that exist in every country, most people just ignore them.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829333
He's talking about torrent encryption, I believe. Communications encryption is not illegal, or else all your bank transactions would be illegal.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829343
Oh, I thought he was talking about a form of encryption that actually mattered.

Torrent encryption is completely worthless. ISPs won't be the ones doing the scanning, most of them have already said they refuse, and that's the only thing it protects you from.

[Anonymous No.]

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829164
Shame about all the net neutrality bullshit going on over here though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829378
Ehwah?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829366
Neither will make a difference. The government doesn't give a shit about what citizens want.

Due to the fact MPs don't give a shit what their constituents want, the UK's model of government is basically a dictatorship, except we get to choose from a set of two incredibly similar dictators, instead of having a single one forced upon us. Citizens have no say in how anything is run other than campaigning to their MPs, and very few MPs will go against what the higher-up members of their party want.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829382
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FCC-loses-key-ruling-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0

FCC doesn't have the authority to require net neutrality. Shit sucks.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829360
The government don't scan computers unless you get arrested for something that would involve your computer and trying to withhold evidence from any court system anywhere will get you in more trouble anyway, not just Britain.

[Anonymous No.]

The US passed a law somewhat like this, except it make owners responsible for porn (including cartoon porn) that is downloaded.

In the house there were only 2 fucking "No" votes, and one of them votes no on pretty much everything anyway.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/06/house-overwhelming-passes-safe-act-on-obscene-images-ron-paul/

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829403
The Digital Britain bill has a clause which states ISPs must monitor all internet connections for infringing material.

This will of course never happen, it's already been proven that it would cost BT alone more than double what BPI claims to be losing per year, and would bankrupt the ISP industry. It is however still worrying people.

The thing we need to really worry about is the "Filter". Hopefully they won't be competent enough to block VPNs, otherwise we're in China-level shit.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829404

If I remember right that only applied to Wifi networks and only if the owner willingly knew what the public used it for.

IE: Claim ignorance of people using your wifi to download kiddy porn and you win

[Anonymous No.]

They keep getting constantly worse. I feel sorry for their citizens.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829404
What a coincidence, yesterday a law came into force in the UK that means looking at loli hentai can get you the same penalties as looking at REAL kiddy porn. First few cases will probably get MORE jail time than real paedos in order to set an example.

Thank you Harman and Smith, you femanazi bitches.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829425
Honestly I think the only thing that keeps loli from being banned everywhere is that most people aren't aware of its existence.

Hell, aren't they even trying to ban it in Japan?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829404
I'm not American so I only heard a little bit about Mr. Ron Paul but everytime I heard about him, I can't help it but think he is great. Other than the /b/-bullshit there was during his election, what are bad things about him?
Sage as it is not really related to the topic.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829411
Pretty sure the monitoring law has been around for a while now, just never ever enforced because as you said, the huge running costs it entails.

Eh, I wouldn't bet on anything major happening like VPNs going down. ISPs hold the real power in these laws, and they don't do anything to upset their customer base.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829436
Yeah, but giving it the same penalty as REAL kiddy porn? They really think those are equivalent crimes?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829447

Try to reason with a feminist and tell us how it goes.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829453
>Try to reason with a female and tell us how it goes.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829444
It hasn't. ISPs currently only have to keep a log of the sites visited by users, and times they were accessed. No details on the contents or anything.

Digital Britain proposes that ISPs should use Deep Packet Inspection to scan each and every piece of content every user downloads, keep a record of it, AND compare it against a database of copyrighted material in order to catch people illegally downloading.

Proof, if any more was needed, that the British government knows fuck all about how technology works, and should keep out of the running of it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829458

Point taken

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829436
Trying and failing.

>>4829437
Because he votes against almost everything. The man's the flat-earther of politics, it just so happens that he occasionally votes the right way for the wrong reason.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829460
>scan each and every piece of content every user downloads, keep a record of it, AND compare it against a database of copyrighted material in order to catch people illegally downloading.

That would be a fucking nightmare to keep track of and store in a database.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829436
Fairly sure the Japan thing was just a front. It popped up around election time, failed, and hasn't been seen since.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829437
I disagree with him on some economic points but would rather have him than any of the garbage leaders they usually feed us.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829460
The British government also wanted to have a nationwide fingerprint and DNA database, didn't they?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829468
Which is why it practically impossible to pass the law, get it?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829468
It would never even make it to the databasing stage. DPS is a fucking nightmare in terms of the resources it uses. No way in hell any ISP in the would would be capable of doing it on all traffic transmitted to and from every customer.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829437

About as hard-core libertarian as one can get.
No federal intervention in anything at all. It's a fine policy on paper or for a tiny country, but it would be far too chaotic for the US. Even the craziest people shouting "SOCIALISM" about Obama refuse to support Ron Paul because it's always some little federal program they approve of that he opposes.

He's also an isolationist. I'm sure history can attest to how well we did with that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829481
Could you mention one point where isolationism hurt us?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829488

World War 2.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829476
I was the one who said it's pointless to worry about it in the first place. Should be focusing on the filter instead of worrying about shit that's impossible to implement.

However doubtful it may be, if they actually employed somebody who knows their shit to sort a filtered site list out, everyone would be fucked. Just got to hope that they either leave it up to ISPs to sort out, who won't give a fuck, or leave the job to someone who works for the government, as they'll probably think blocking The Pirate Bay will solve the problem. If they leave it up to somebody independent, or worse yet BPI, there's no chance in hell of it being something we can brush off.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829495
What the hell are you talking about? Japan attacking us had nothing to do with isolationism and we would have been fine aside from that. Maybe the rest of the world would have had an issue but not us.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829481
For one thing, Ron Paul doesn't support isolationism, he supports a return to a more moderate stance where the US doesn't have troops everywhere and meddles in everybody's business. That's what every country except the US does, and believe it or not, that way, people don't get pissed off at you and you save lots of money.

[Anonymous No.]

If I were a movie studio, I would hire employees just to drive around neighborhoods looking for open Wi-Fi. Then after finding them, I would illegally download as many of my own movies as possible and sue them for it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829515
That sounds so nice...

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829505
>implying the US would have been fine with Hitler in control of Europe and possibly Russia

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829515
Every country except the UK, who follows America into the depths of hell in order to keep our "Special relationship" going.

Hell, Mandelson going on holiday with some RIAA scumbag was how this whole Digital Britain fiasco started.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829505

Had the US been able to enter the war in 1939, World War 2's death toll would be much lower.

Further, as world war 2 can attest to, Isolationism does nothing to protect a country from attack. It merely alienates their allies.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829515
I think you've misunderstood what Ron Paul stands for. Far too many of you idiots have simply substituted your own beliefs into Ron Paul's.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829523
First off, I highly doubt Hitler would have gained control of all of Europe/Russia. Second, if he did he would have been overthrown just as every goddamn totalitarian regime is eventually. Third, we would be better off declaring war only when threatened thereby not wasting our effort. In any event, making the argument that isolationism is bad through such an extreme example is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829523
Given that the USA's contribution to the european front was lending a few weapons to the russians doing the bulk of the work and sending soldiers at the end of the war to win battles that didn't need winning, the US stood for little risk had it chosen to not participate in WW2.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829531
I don't care about the death toll. I am talking about the benefits/failures of the U.S. It is not the U.S's fault Europe managed to fuck up so bad.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829523
Even if the US hadn't gotten involved in WW2, it's EXTREMELY unlikely Hitler would have conquered Europe. Russia were the ones who completely curb-stomped him, they did it because Hitler stupidly tried to invade them. The US had nothing to do with it, they just showed up drunk right at the end and decided to shove the debt for their services onto Europe. If anything, they did more harm than good to the Allies, giving most a national debt to the US that wouldn't be paid off until the 1980s for most.

[/d/eviating Ca/tg/irl No.]

>>4829437

Uh...the fact that the man is utterly insane?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829526
>Every country except the UK, who follows America into the depths of hell

If it makes you feel better, most Americans like you guys more than any other country in Europe.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829534
I've read his books. He explicitly says he doesn't support isolationism.
So much for that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829556
That's only because you can understand us, and our government would probably lick your arses clean if you asked nicely.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829553
The US provided enormous industrial and military support for both Russia and Europe. The idea they were not crucial to Hitler's loss is revisionist bullshit.

And Hitler already controlled most of Europe, only the neutral countries and the UK had held out.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829550

The death toll includes American lives as well.

Isolationism is never a net positive for the country that practices it. There are countless historical examples.

Hell, here's one you should be familiar with if you're on /jp/. Japan. Isolationism sure worked out well for them right?

Well, until America and Europe parked gunships in their ports and all.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829567
If you don't think Russia would win without the U.S's help you're an idiot. Invasions of Russia never work out for a reason.

[Anonymous No.]

Thread begins on the subject of UK law, is now discussing Hitler and Nazis.

Good to see that the internet is still the internet, despite all the various goings-on of late.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829571
First, the death toll of the U.S. would be zero if we didn't enter in the first place. Second, we are clearly discussing a different level of isolationism. I merely mean not entering into the affairs of other nations, not blocking immigration/trade.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829567
Russia would have bitch-slapped them on their own. Virtually impossible to successfully invade Russia, and the sheer numbers that made up their army would have completely crushed Germany. All America did was quicken the process, and charge a ridiculous amount to do so.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829567
Given that the most crucial part of the war turned out to be the eastern front, which depleted Axis morale and supply lines, the other european countries are irrelevant.
After reaching Berlin, the Russians would've simply gone on.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829577

Nigger, your presces Russia was taking a stomping. Hand they turned their full attention(after slapping the brits down), they would have been paste.

[Anonymous No.]

“Isolationism isn't what I advocate,’’ Paul told Blitzer. “I advocate non-intervention, not getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and not pretending a country like Iraq is equivalent to Nazi Germany. Iraq had no army, no navy, had no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with 9/11, so the comparison makes no sense.

Under what circumstances, if he were president, would Paul intervene outside the borders of the United States in some sort of crisis around the world, Blitzer asked the candidate.

“When Congress directed me to in the act of war,’’ Paul replied. “If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.’’

Paul's position regarding foreign involvement.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829606
Even if Russia loses more people, it'll always just throw more at the enemy. That's why they wouldn't have lost (also adding in that invading Russia doesn't work for shit when you consider how large it is and the climate).

[Anonymous No.]

Isn't there a happy medium between spreading your military across every country in the world and fleeing at any attempt at contact by a foreign country?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829588

>First, the death toll of the U.S. would be zero if we didn't enter in the first place.

So...what was Pearl Harbor, then?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829555
It would be fine if you could elaborate you know.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829606
Had they turned their full attention, the germans would've been stuck with more men in mud and uprisings in other countries due to less presence.
They were fighting a war that they couldn't win, plain as that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829588
>First, the death toll of the U.S. would be zero if we didn't enter in the first place.

And I am saying this is impossible.
Which it is.

As for levels of isolationism, I presented that example simply as an example. Isolationism has never ever resulted in a net gain for countries that practiced it. Ever.

Take the modern example of Belarus. Russia jerks them around for fun.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829523

Even with how well Nazi Germany and its allies were doing, they would not have had the manpower to conquer and maintain all of Europe, Asia, and Africa, regardless of the US' decision to enter the war in an aggressive manner.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829614
Only acting in wars that concern you.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829616
I think you have to forget Pearl Harbor in this hypothetical scenario. Without Pearl Harbor, America give a sporadic care about "those horrible wars in Europe". In this scenario.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829616
We're discussing the war in Europe you fucking retard. Obviously there is no choice but to fight when someone bombs you. There is, however, no reason to attack a nation on the other side of the planet when it isn't attacking you.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829619

To be fair, Germany invaded Russia once(when they were even larger) and forced them to surrender.

And the soviets ALMOST gave up. It's been recorded that Stalin was considering surrender if the Germans took Moscow.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829616
The U.S. decided to do an embargo on japan, a declaration of economic war.
Also, classifying the US war against japan as world war 2 is silly given that japan had an alliance with Nazi Germany in name only. Essentially, those were two different wars that quickly succeeded each other.
WW2 was in europe.

[Anonymous No.]

/jp/ - Piracy and Foreign Policy

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829655
It's more interesting than the alternatives.

[Anonymous No.]

>isolationist

[Anonymous No.]

>mention ron paul
>200 replies

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829678

Relatively few of the posts in this thread mention Ron Paul or his ideologies.

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

[anon of bangkok No.]

at least its not australia.

[sage No.]

>>4829118
>UK
I don't give a fuck, honestly.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4829697
This thread went from "UK law" to "WW2: The Fanfiction"

[Anonymous No.]

HAHAHAHAHA oh god England keeps getting shittier and shittier with each fucking day. You poor sods, lol. Enjoy your 1984 police state dystopia faggots.

[Marisa Kirisame !MARiSADA4A No.]

>>4831522
Protip : In one day, a law far worse than this one will be passed in the US.

Enjoy paying $100 a month for 256k DSL with a max data transfer of 1GB per month, an additional GB is $25 more, overage fees, having to pay $25 more per month JUST to access Ebay and Yahoo, etc etc etc.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

I'm gonna grab my PS90 and go inna woods when this shit goes into effect - Its basically a SHTF situation for me.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831546
I hope you have a gun, that .22 mag isn't going to take anything bigger than a squirrel down.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831546
>implying you have outdoor survival skills
>>tripfag
actually, go a head and do it now

[Anonymous No.]

sauce!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11L5jvvatSE

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831546
amerikkkans ruin the internet with their shitty blogs and youtube comments anyway, it's just recompense

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831546

Are you retarded?
Because I think you are. You seem to think that we want congressmen to vote against the net neutrality bill, when that's exactly what we dont want(note, your link says the same damn thing too)

The bill passing would be a good thing
and if it doesn't pass, it's unlikely ISPs will suddenly change overnight. Assuming the bill doesn't pass, it'll just get revised and resubmitted, like all bills.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831558
He posts in /k/.
He has expert training in woodsman skills. Being within 5 meters of an SKS also gives him a 5 point bonus on all skills.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831564
>Are you retarded?

He actually buys 5.7, what do you think?

[Marisa Kirisame !MARiSADA4A No.]

>>4831567
Pretty much this.

>>4831564
I didn't read about the laws or anything like that.
I just read "What life would be like without net neutrality"

Either way, we're fucked.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831546
Enjoy your downgraded weapon with a longer barrel and only able to fire in semi-auto. Also, doesn't the fact of not having access to armor piercing ammuntions defeat the point ?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831569

Well, I rescind my earlier statement, apparently the current hubbub is about a court ruling.

I now proclaim him retarded because this law is ALREADY in effect due to the case being over. It is now up to the FCC to reclassify, which we WOULD want them to do.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831546
because the mighty bark armor needs some piercing, right?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831584
Yes, FN laughs every time someone buys a PS90. The gun is just one big troll made out of plastic.

[Anonymous No.]

>129 posts and 11 image replies omitted.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831584
Actually, there have been civilian rounds with comparable penetration to SS190, or so I recall hearing about.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831603
>Marisa setting it up so he can post his refilled SUPER EVERY ARMOR PIERCING rounds again whose wound channel is still as laughable as a japanese penis

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831603
>SS190
>penetration
>all three atoms worth

I get it, that's the joke!

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831590
Well, to be honest, most of the stuff that lives in the forest has pretty thick skin.
Not sure penetrating that with something the size of a pencil tip will kill, tho.

[Anonymous No.]

Internet as we know it is over. Back to television and only receiving the information they want you to see.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831607
The bears started wearing body armor.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831604
Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I just recall hearing that.
I own 9mms, not .22s.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831617
Enjoy your lack of stopping power.

[Marisa Kirisame !MARiSADA4A No.]

>Go to /jp/
>Post in a net neutrality thread
>Troll /k/ without even going to /k/ or even posting material that trolls /k/

Damn.

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831628
>go to /jp/
>post with your fucking name and trip
>get hated everywhere

WHO WOULD'VE EXPECTED THAT

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831622
Herp. My boolit is a fraction of an inch bigger. It's slower, but surely it'll kill things deader.
Stopping power is a damn myth and you full well know it.

[Marisa Kirisame !MARiSADA4A No.]

>>4831638
Can you guys take the debate to /k/ please?

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831643
It's not really a debate.
We're both kidding around with /k/ stereotypes.
Although I really do own those 9mms.
and a .38...

[Anonymous No.]

>>4831643
Dear Mr. Pizza Boy,

As you apparently do not know the word "Otaku" does not refer specifically to "Anime/Manga Otaku" or "VN Otaku" or "2D Otaku", but simply to a person who is pretty much addicted to something.
I do not see any rule prohibiting weapons otaku to piss on you at every opportunity, seeing how you made yourself part of a universally hated minority (tripfags)

[Anonymous No.]

Guns? Seriously. You guys...