Home » Budget Industry » Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Ship Naming Conventions


Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Ship Naming Conventions

The following is the July 6, 2018 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress.

From the report:

Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy’s policies and practices for naming ships.

For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules can be summarized as follows:

  • The first Ohio replacement ballistic missile submarine (SBNX) has been named Columbia in honor of the District of Columbia, but the Navy has not stated what the naming rule for these ships will be.
  • Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states.
  • Aircraft carriers are generally named for past U.S. Presidents. Of the past 14, 10 were named for past U.S. Presidents, and 2 for Members of Congress.
  • Destroyers are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy.
  • Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) are being named for regionally important U.S. cities and communities.
  • Amphibious assault ships are being named for important battles in which U.S. Marines played a prominent part, and for famous earlier U.S. Navy ships that were not named for battles.
  • San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U.S. cities and communities, and cities and communities attacked on September 11, 2001.
  • John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, previously known as TAO(X)s, are being named for people who fought for civil rights and human rights.
  • Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and ammunition ships were named for famous American explorers, trailblazers, and pioneers.
  • Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs), previously called Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs), are being named for small U.S. cities.
  • Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs) and Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESBs), previously called Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships and Afloat Forward
    Staging Bases (AFSBs), respectively, are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S. Marines.

The Navy historically has only rarely named ships for living persons. Since 1974, at least 19 U.S. military ships have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced. Eight of the 19 have been announced since January 2012, including three announced in 2012 and four announced in 2016.

Members of the public are sometimes interested in having Navy ships named for their own states or cities, for older U.S. Navy ships (particularly those on which they or their relatives served), for battles in which they or their relatives participated, or for people they admire.

Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced the naming of certain Navy ships. The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express support for proposals to name a Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy to make their support known. Congress may also pass legislation relating to ship names. Measures passed by Congress in recent years regarding Navy ship names have all been sense-of-the-Congress provisions.


via fas.org

  • Ed L

    USS Frank Gifford, Francis Marion, Saratoga, lots of cities out there really like the publicity of a warship being named after their City. USS Vince Lombardi, I like the ring of that. USS Tom Landry? Or the USS Baryshnikov. Former Soviet citizen who defected to Canada and Became a United States citizen. USS Zachary Taylor, I’d like to see the USS or USNS Martin Luther King who was a great believer in the first and second amendment plus he believed in the right to bare arms, was a gun owner himself

    • Sir Bateman

      Personally, I think naming any sort of naval vessel, other than a hospital ship, after a civil rights icon is inappropriate. Schools, hospitals, community centers, national parks, etc. strike as much more fitting.

    • Rocco

      OK your last half of your post suggestions is ridiculous!!

  • Ed L

    I requested a moderation on that what’s face

    • totalitat

      Aw, did you? So you didn’t mind someone slandering Rep Giffords, but OF COURSE REAGAN IS JUST OFF LIMITS! Sob.

      Given that the USNI policy moderates based on the following — I disagree with this user Targeted harassment — posted or encouraged others to post harassing comments or hate speech targeting me, other individuals, or groups Spam — posted spam comments or discussions Inappropriate profile — profile contains inappropriate images or text Threatening content — posted directly threatening content Impersonation — misrepresents themselves as someone else Private information — posted someone else’s personally identifiable information — I don’t see anything in there that I violated.

  • Sir Bateman

    I tried to post it earlier but USNI for some reason thought it best to delete my comment. At any rate ship naming conventions have been going south for decades, but they definitely took a real nose dive during the course of the prior administration. Naming carriers after Ford, Vinson and Stennis was pretty absurd IMO but at least Ford served with distinction in the USN during WWII and Vinson and Stennis were huge proponents of the USN. Giffords and Carl Levin never served in the armed forces in any capacity and neither were ever noted for their support of the USN.

    Personally I’d like to see carriers again named after noteworthy historical ships and battles, SSNs after fish, and destroyers after deserving USN & USMC servicemen.

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      Everything you said, I agree 1001%. I agree totally. Vinson and Stennis were pretty stupid names but at least someone could make an argument for them and their Congressional/military service. Ford, I mean, I guess, President under hard times, right? Obama bin Biden’s administration basically ruined everything beyond even a close chance of reconciliation. Giffords, Levin, Milk, Truth, Lewis, it’s OFFENSIVE to multiple groups of people on multiple levels. It’s wrong.

      Plus I agree with your ideas… I am trying to get some USS Hornets, USS Rangers, USS Saratogas, etc. Britain has some great names too… Where’s the cool-ass names the UK uses, like Invincible, Dragon, Audacious, … Resolute, Unstoppable, Firepower, Universe, etc. I realize they are not going to use those names, I’m just saying. We need some oomph and pizzazz with our amazing ships… Not Harvey Milk and Gabby Giffords.

      • Rocco

        The Names not stricken from the Navy list as museum status can’t be used dude

        • Ser Arthur Dayne

          Whatever you say buddy… I really don’t want to have to retype the entire page of explanation I gave you *the last time* you tried to argue this point. Do me a favor , like I asked Duane, just ignore me, I don’t have the time or inclination to argue with you.

          • Rocco

            I don’t care what proof you have!! All ships that are in museum status & one which I served on hasn’t been renamed a new same class of ship! You tell me why then!! ?? Because you can’t. Kennedy will not be a museum an is stricken from the Navy list. BTW the Navy still inspects the ships for material condition!! FYI.

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            Welcome to my ignore list, good sir.

          • Ctrot

            Rocco is a broken record on the museum ship meme

      • TomD

        Also, Harvey Milk was just a local official, not Federal let alone state. I know of a police officer who was bitten by a rabid racoon and so deserves a ship just as much as he does.

      • tiger

        Do Robert E. Lee or Thomas Jackson get used again?

        • totalitat

          I’d prefer not to have ships named after traitors to the United States.

          • tiger

            Loyalty to ones state and not a fuzy central government in D.C. was held in higher regards on both sides. Most forces were state forces.

          • totalitat

            No, they thought they were traitors then, too.

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      Now I see what you mean, a lot of my comments are suddenly “awaiting moderation” — I think the progressive left-wing nutjob is going through and reporting our posts just to be spiteful.

      • totalitat

        Actually, I haven’t reported anyone because — unlike you folks up above responding to my first comment — I think people should get to say what they want in comment threads. Mostly so I can mock them, but still.

      • Sir Bateman

        I don’t know how the system of moderation works here, but it seems like it’ll flag the most benign comments.

        In one of my deleted posts all I said was that perhaps it’d be a good idea to turn over USN ship naming to a apolitical panel made up of naval historians and or senior and retired USN personnel.

        • muzzleloader

          I too have had posts completely deleted, posts that were articulate, well thought through, and non profane.
          Sometimes I think the editors get uncomfortable with some posts that are too truthful.

    • Rocco

      The Nimitz class should of carried traditional names of the admirals of WW-2 that severed with Nimitz!! King , McCain, Spruance…. Even though he got a class of destroyer’s in his name! It should be reused again. We can’t let current service people forget those that served are the very reason we’re all here today.

  • Augustine’s Lion

    I second the motion.

    • Rocco

      Agreed

  • Chesapeakeguy

    I’ve been saying for decades now the ONLY living persons who deserve a warship named after them are Medal of Honor recipients. The truly great names of ships and subs should always be recycled. Why is there no USS Nautilus among our current subs? Why no USS Tautog? Or USS Tang? How about subs named after some of the legendary sub commanders like Richard O’Kane or Mush Morton? The Navy USED to have a decent policy for naming ships, but that went out decades ago. BBs were named for states, cruisers for cities, subs for ocean life, boomers for Presidents and prominent historical figures, etc. Now there are several classes named for states, politicians, whatever. Both parties are guilty for this happening.

    • tiger

      I want subs back to being fish!!!!!

    • El_Sid

      I’ve noted before how the US likes to honour individuals whereas European countries prefer to honour the whole crew(s) represented by reusing old ship names. But personally with so many great names not being used, I’d take the view that the Medal of Honor guys already got their recognition with the medal, they don’t need a ship as well.

      The real problem came with naming SSNs after states – there’s >50 SSNs in the fleet so something has to give, and they’re not fish, but also the “state” ship is something that ordinary folk can identify with so it makes no sense to give the name to something that a)isn’t visible most of the time and b)isn’t exactly easy for people to visit, on security or space grounds. Something like the big gators would be ideal for state names – and I would have reused some of the state names used on monitors for the Zumwalts.

      The one name that I’m always surprised isn’t being used is USS Johnston – but I guess there’s two Johnsons in the fleet at the moment.

      It’s kinda weird that there’s a USS Churchill and HMS Enterprise at the moment, but not vice versa.

  • muzzleloader

    The Nimitz class CVN beyond the lead ship, became the politician class.
    Let’s not see this happen with the Ford.
    CVN-80 will be the Enterprise. Keep it going: Lexington, Yorktown, Saratoga, Hornet, Midway.

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      HEAR, HEAR!!! My only addition to Lexington, Yorktown, Saratoga, Hornet, & Midway would be Ranger — I think we definitely need another USS Ranger (especially a badass Ford-class CVN Ranger) and if we have enough room at the end of the class, I’d want to add Wasp ( according to Wikipedia, USS Wasp LHD-1 almost exactly 29 years ago…) — that would suggest to me, if we keep our modern big-deck amphibs for ~40-45 years (which is really best-case scenario, IMHO) we’d be decommissioning the Wasp right when we’re nearing the last of the Ford-class replacing the Nimitz-class … perfect timing!

      And certainly, CERTAINLY, a Ford-class CVN lineup of USS Enterprise, Lexington, Yorktown, Saratoga, Hornet, Midway, Ranger, Wasp, along JFK & Ford … now THAT is a much better lineup than dead presidents and Congressmen…. could even throw in a Valley Forge & Coral Sea/Iwo Jima/etc. for an 11/12th ship

      • Rocco

        Agreed can’t use Yorktown! The Names really should follow into the new LHA platforms America class as well like the WASP class took on historical background names.

      • Aj jordan

        I agree with everything except Iwo jima..I think battles where Marines fought should be assigned to big deck amphibs like LHD’s/LHA’s….but good list other than that…

        • Rocco

          I just said that!!!!👇

      • raptureready

        So, you’re okay with putting the name “America” on a gator-frieghter?

        I agree with naming CVN’s with traditional CV names. I also believe the names “America” and “United States” should be on the biggest, baddest ships of the Navy fleet.

        You want to name a ship after a person, put it on a tin can. That’s what DDG’s are there for.

        • Ser Arthur Dayne

          I am not sure if you’re asking me or someone else- but listen, I am not the guy picking the names of ships nor the names of CLASSES of ships, which in my humble opinion is an even greater honor… and the USS America is the CLASS of LHAs… which to me is a big honor. Plus, everyone across the world is advocating for more LHAs/LHDs and “baby-carriers” and less Nimitz/Ford-style supercarriers… and if you look at this very site’s Fleet Tracker, there are always many LHA/LHDs actively sailing our seas… so I am not against the USS America being a big-deck amphib. Certainly wouldn’t mind it having been a Ford-class CVN — I believe a Congressional motion was made for the next available capital ship to be USS America and naval leadership named the new LHA class after it. — also, about the naming of a person, I agree. You hit the nail on the head.

        • El_Sid

          I can’t help remembering the Deutschland, which Hitler had renamed to Lützow in part because he was worried about the propaganda value of Deutschland being sunk.

      • Donald Carey

        Drop JFK and Ford in the future.

        • tiger

          Those names are built or building already.

          • Donald Carey

            Just what do you think “in the future” means? It means don’t use these names again.

    • Rocco

      Agreed!! Can’t use Lexington though!

    • RobM1981

      Are you crazy? Legacy? In the Navy?

      Admiral Rickover opened the lap-dog floodgates, and we will never go back.

      I have zero issue with naming a carrier after President Bush, who was a naval aviator. I’m even OK with Ford and Carter getting ships, since they both served honorably. A carrier for Ford?
      Was he an officer on a carrier?

      Of course there are notable exceptions. George Washington? Abe Lincoln? Sure. TR won the Medal of Honor, so of course.

      But are we to expect a William Jefferson Clinton? A Barack Hussein Obama? We already have several very ill-named ships. This is a slippery slope. You are absolutely correct.

      • totalitat

        And we would all shudder at a USS George W Bush or a USS Donald Trump, wouldn’t we?

        • TomD

          George W would deserve an Air National Guard installation.

          • totalitat

            The USS George W Bush would have to be based in West Texas but later claim that it had been homeported in Vietnam.

            Thank you! Thank you! Tip your servers.

          • TomD

            All sarcasm aside, I think the point we can agree on is 1) G.W. Bush never served in the Navy and 2) unlike Reagan he never contributed to a major buildup in the Navy.

            BTW, you attacked both Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt as unworthy of having ships named after them, but you gave FDR a pass, who never served in the Navy either. FDR’s contributions to the Navy look similar to that of Reagan and Teddy, just with steroids. Your omission of FDR from criticism frankly looks partisan.

          • totalitat

            BTW, you attacked both Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt as unworthy of having ships named after them, but you gave FDR a pass, who never served in the Navy either. FDR’s contributions to the Navy look similar to that of Reagan and Teddy, just with steroids. Your omission of FDR from criticism frankly looks partisan.

            I attacked people who have current ships named after them. FDR does not.

            Try again.

          • TomD

            Yeah you made that REALLY clear. Seriously, naming a carrier after FDR is what set the current policy, and your criticism should be against (or for) the policy.

          • totalitat

            Hey, guess what? I think I’ll decide what I’m for or against and, as I noted in another post, I attacked naming ships for Reagan & TR for reasons specific to them, not something that generalizes to FDR.

          • TomD

            Exactly, but you obviously can’t or won’t tell the difference between a generalization and an observation that your citing of specifics is hypocritical.

          • totalitat

            *Sob* *Sniffle* Now you’ve hurt my feelings.

          • totalitat

            BTW, you attacked both Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt as unworthy of having ships named after them, but you gave FDR a pass, who never served in the Navy either

            Oh, and FYI, I didn’t attack them for not having served in the Navy (I did point it out for Reagan to one person who wanted to make that the measuring stick), I attacked them for 1) selling arms to communists (Reagan), and 2) covering up war crimes in the Philippines (Roosevelt).

          • TomD

            I’m sure you could find things to criticize FDR for, if you tried.

            BTW, neither the Iranians or the Contras were communists.

          • totalitat

            I’m sure you could find things to criticize FDR for, if you tried.

            And if there was currently a ship named for him, I might work at it. But there isn’t, and so you’re wasting my time.

            neither the Iranians or the Contras were communists

            You don’t know your history of the Contras as well as you think you do, apparently.

          • TomD

            You are wasting your time anyway.

          • totalitat

            No, I’m enjoying mocking people, especially the ones who don’t like the implications of their own logic, or the history of their own country.

        • RobM1981

          I know that I would. If W had an Air Base named after him, at least that tracks. But a CVN? No, thank you. JFK is fine. Truman should have an Army base named after him. Yes, sure, they were all ultimately “Commander in Chief,” but there has to be something to service-specificity…

          • Donald Carey

            After how well he skippered a PT boat (getting run over by a DD he was supposed to be hunting), I don’t think any ship should be named after him.

      • Aj jordan

        Btw, yes Gerald Ford was on a baby flat top (escort carrier) in ww2…… I find it funny how they low balled Johnson who was also in the Navy by putting his name on DDG-1003……I understand why though…..

        • muzzleloader

          Ford served on board the USS Monterey (CVL-26)

    • tiger

      Personally I would like the father of naval aviation get his due. In 100 years Eugene Ely, has never been honored.

      • El_Sid

        Surprised at that, although arguably Samson and in particular Dunning were at least as important.

        Mind you, the RN has never had an HMS Cunningham, which is another of those “holes” you don’t think about until it’s mentioned. It’d be a good name should the Albions get replaced by some kind of large aviation ship.

    • El_Sid

      Hornet won’t happen whilst F/A-18 is in service.

  • totalitat

    Nope, I’m on the right web site — the one where we decide who is a “real American” right? I vote for Rep Gabrielle Giffords, who took a bullet for her country.

    • W900A

      No she was a victim while at a political event, she was not and so far as I know never served in the military much less the Navy. There many many service members who have taken far more risk in actual combat then just some druggy nut shooting a bunch of people including her. Where is the USS Foss for Joe Foss CMH recipient for Guadalcanal? Anyone who received the Navy Cross or Silver Star or Distinguished Flying Cross are all vastly more deserving then she is. They also fit the naming conventions of past and now this. You might want to learn some Navy and Marine Corps history before you go trying to defend what became a political show piece for the last administration and ignore some real heroes. So you know if you get shot in a drive by by some gangster or druggy? We aren’t naming a ship for you.

      • totalitat

        No she was a victim while at a political event

        Right — while serving as an official elected representative of her country, she took a bullet.

        she was not and so far as I know never served in the military much less the Navy

        I didn’t say she did. Ronald Reagan didn’t serve in the Navy either.

        They also fit the naming conventions of past and now this

        Hah! You mean the convention that aircraft carriers are named after Presidents — oh, wait, except for the Vinson and the Nimitz and so on? And oh, wait, we’re going to not going to use some Presidents names for carriers — Carter, Johnson — because, well, because?

        Oh, and the convention that we’re not going to name ships for living people, except for the Bush, etc, etc, etc.

        Those naming conventions?

        you know if you get shot in a drive by by some gangster or druggy? We aren’t naming a ship for you

        I love how you’ve phrased this as if she was involved in some sketchy drug situation and got shot. The reality is that while serving as a member of the House of Representatives, she survived a violent assassination attempt.

        • Rocco

          Chill your argument dude!! Although sad what happened to G Gifford, doesn’t matter!! We can’t start naming ships after political people low in rank just because they get attacked!!

          • totalitat

            Sure we can.

          • Rocco

            Whatever you say JACKWAGON!!🖕

          • totalitat

            Excellent! Good to know you agree with me now.

          • Rocco

            Not in the least

          • totalitat

            You’re too kind.

        • tiger

          George Wallace is more noteworthy

      • Ed L

        Like my Daughter in the Army. Who getting ready to go over again. She Did one tour in the sand box, serving like her Parents, grandfathers, great grandfather, great great grandfather, great great great grandfather, great great great great grandfather and his father who fought for freedom in the Jacobite rising of 1745

      • Rocco

        Agreed kudo’s

    • TomD

      Rep. Gifford’s shooter was not against our country, he was against the demons in his own head, if that.

      • totalitat

        So what? Are you checking every Japanese flyer in WWII to see if they were really fighting for their country or had been drafted against their will and then downgrade American heroism against them because they weren’t really fighting against our country?

        • TomD

          No, we can safely make assumptions, such as

          1) Rep Giffords was not attacked by an enemy of the United States
          2) Japanese flyers in WW2 were enemies of the United States
          3) totalitat is an ideologue who doesn’t know much concerning the subject he writes about

          • totalitat

            So, no, you don’t actually believe your own point. Good to know.

          • TomD

            But I do. Why do trolls like you try to twist posts to mean the opposite of what they mean?

          • totalitat

            No, you don’t, and you can’t stand the discomfort of having the implications of your own logic pointed out.

          • TomD

            I saw no implications. The twisting led nowhere.

          • totalitat

            You decided to see no implications. There’s a difference.

    • tiger

      Been a crime victim does not make you worthy of a ship.

      • totalitat

        Being the victim of an assassination attempt does, though.

        • tiger

          So where is the USS George Wallace? Or Huey Long? Or John Connolly? Far more note worthy historical figures than a back bench Congresswoman from AZ.

  • Timo

    USS Gabrielle Giffords..

    “Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) are being named for regionally important U.S. cities and communities.”

    Com’on now..

    • proudrino

      Political reward by Obama for pushing against our civil rights. LCS-10 should be renamed to honor the NRA and the second amendment.

      • Rocco

        Negative

      • Fred Gould

        Rethink that with the Russian investigation.

      • totalitat

        Then we can name ships after school massacres — the USS Columbine, the USS Sandy Hook. After all, why not honor what the NRA has helped create?

        • Tom Herrick

          Please

        • TomD

          America’s ‘gun culture’ long predated the NRA, and the NRA existed for a century before our modern social (media driven?) psychoses. Citing the NRA is an inept attempt to politicize a problem that goes way beyond politics. It fails the causality test.

          • totalitat

            The NRA existed but it hadn’t turned into the sociopathic lobbying group it is today. E.G., for most of the 20th century, the NRA favored gun control and helped (FDR among others) write gun control legislation. So, no, it’s a perfectly ept attempt to point out that the NRA is an active obstacle to stopping school massacres like Sandy Hook.

          • Jarhead

            Seek total help totlitat….

          • totalitat

            Remove the wool from your eyes, yarherd.

          • muzzleloader

            He’s David Hogg’s little brother. Just ignore him.

          • TomD

            What gun control legislation did FDR write? I’m unaware of any. It sounds like you are propagating a myth.

            As far as I can see, the only finger that can be pointed at the NRA is that their training materials, which are in wide use across the county, do not tell gun owners what to do when they have a family member with, or suspected of, mental illness. Only two public shootings can be traced to mentally ill people getting firearms from family members, namely Sandy Hook and the U.S. Capitol shooting in the 1990’s, so I can point a finger at the NRA only for those two, and only indirectly at that. The main problem we have is a lack of meaningful background checks, and the reason for that is not going to be fixed with the proposals that gun control proponents keep floating, because most of these shooters have no documented background. The only way you will be able to create such a background system would be to re-institutionalize the militia. Since gun control advocates are generally opposed to that, I have to conclude they are far more ‘sociopathic’ than the NRA. Also, it would probably help if the media voluntarily toned down their definitely sociopathic entertainments and news coverage, but that likely won’t happen until victims sue them.

          • totalitat

            What gun control legislation did FDR write? I’m unaware of any

            The 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, both of which the NRA helped him draft. Karl Frederick, who was President of the NRA at the time, testified to Congress in 1939 that “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

            Perhaps you should actually learn the history you’re so confidently talking about?

          • TomD

            I think I would basically agree with Karl Frederick, with emphasis on words like ‘promiscuous’. Replace that word with ‘sober and civic minded’ and I’d disagree.

            Ah, yes, the 1934 National Firearms Act. Forgot about that, since the weapons it covers are generally not of major concern to most people and are almost never used in any crimes. It’s not really important in the big picture. I should point out that it is entirely possible that FDR had nothing to do with the drafting of the Act, those were the days when Congress exercised much independence.

            There is no 1938 Gun Control Act. You must be thinking of the 1968 Act, which was written 23 years after FDR died. Perhaps you should actually learn the history you’re so confidently talking about?

          • totalitat

            Ah, yes, the 1934 National Firearms Act. Forgot about that, since the weapons it covers are generally not of major concern to most people and are almost never used in any crimes

            Wait, you mean the government banned/regulated certain types of weapons and they weren’t used in crimes afterwards? Thanks for the glowing recommendation for gun control laws.

            I should point out that it is entirely possible that FDR had nothing to do with the drafting of the Act,

            Roosevelt proposed the Act to Congress.

            There is no 1938 Gun Control Act. You must be thinking of the 1968 Act, which was written 23 years after FDR died.

            Actually, I was thinking of the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which Roosevelt did pass. I’m sorry to have gotten the name wrong, but given that you managed to be so mistakenly unaware as to say “What gun control legislation did FDR write? I’m unaware of any. It sounds like you are propagating a myth” I think I’m allowed a minor error.

            And, by the way, since googling “1938 Gun Control Act” pops up multiple references to the Federal Firearms Act — ones you must have seen — you deliberately ignored that to try and make my error look worse, which is impressively dishonest.

          • totalitat

            Ah, not responding in this part of the thread anymore? I love the smell of victory in the morning.

          • TomD

            Hey that quite a troll-taunt. My post was the last until now. You want me to respond to myself?

          • totalitat

            Er, Dude, if you look right below the post you just made, you’ll see my response from a day ago. But just in case you can’t see it for some reason, this what I posted:

            Ah, yes, the 1934 National Firearms Act. Forgot about that, since the weapons it covers are generally not of major concern to most people and are almost never used in any crimes

            Wait, you mean the government banned/regulated certain types of weapons and they weren’t used in crimes afterwards? Thanks for the glowing recommendation for gun control laws.

            I should point out that it is entirely possible that FDR had nothing to do with the drafting of the Act,

            Roosevelt proposed the Act to Congress.

            There is no 1938 Gun Control Act. You must be thinking of the 1968 Act, which was written 23 years after FDR died.

            Actually, I was thinking of the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which Roosevelt did pass. I’m sorry to have gotten the name wrong, but given that you managed to be so mistakenly unaware as to say “What gun control legislation did FDR write? I’m unaware of any. It sounds like you are propagating a myth” I think I’m allowed a minor error.

            And, by the way, since googling “1938 Gun Control Act” pops up multiple references to the Federal Firearms Act — ones you must have seen — you deliberately ignored that to try and make my error look worse, which is impressively dishonest.

          • TomD

            Sorry, Disqus failed to notify me of your reply. I haven’t been back to this page to see any. And no, I didn’t google it the 1938 Act, Wikipedia failed to bring it up when I searched for it there.

            Now that I’ve found it, I can state that like the 1934 Act it is of little importance to the average person, since it affects only dealers and manufacturers.

            “Wait, you mean the government banned/regulated certain types of weapons and they weren’t used in crimes afterwards? Thanks for the glowing recommendation for gun control laws.”

            It could be so argued. It banned nothing, at least for the rich, but it did impose a background check regimen that is certainly effective. The issue today can be stated this way: “The weapons regulated by the 1934 Act are an inconsequential segment of the market. How can the same background check regimen be effectively extended to the entire market without infringing on constitutional rights?” It obviously can’t be done the way that the 1934 Act did.

          • totalitat

            Now that I’ve found it, I can state that like the 1934 Act it is of little importance to the average person, since it affects only dealers and manufacturers.

            Ah, the “well, it’s not real gun control” goal post shifting. Good to see.

            It could be so argued

            Why, I think I was doing exactly that.

            “The weapons regulated by the 1934 Act are an inconsequential segment of the market. How can the same background check regimen be effectively extended to the entire market without infringing on constitutional rights?

            It could be, if one were inclined to make ridiculous arguments. Hint: there’s no caveat in the constitution about rights not applying because they’re only “an inconsequential segment of the market.”

            But in any case, we’re wandering. Are you now prepared to admit that you were wrong about it being a myth that FDR passed gun control legislation?

            Man up. You can do it.

          • TomD

            “Ah, the “well, it’s not real gun control” goal post shifting. Good to see.”
            But the posts HAVE shifted. The reach of Federal gun control laws since the 1960’s are FAR more extensive than those of the 1930’s.

            “‘It could be so argued’ Why, I think I was doing exactly that.”
            Yes, I was giving you your due.

            “It could be, if one were inclined to make ridiculous arguments…”
            Well, if as you say the NRA accepted the 1934 Act then it was because they accepted that argument.

            “…Hint: there’s no caveat in the constitution about rights not applying because they’re only “an inconsequential segment of the market.””
            Very true. What does that then say about modern so-called assault weapons, which are not an inconsequential market?

            “Are you now prepared to admit that you were wrong about it being a myth that FDR passed gun control legislation?”
            Yeah, I’ll go 90% there. I still reserve the right to the other 10% on the grounds that it really is Congress that passes laws and the actual legislative history of the passage is unknown to me – if Sam Rayburn wanted these Acts more than FDR and influenced more votes then that makes it much different. Also, I have to tell you honestly, when we first started I was thinking primarily about the United States v. Miller 1939 Supreme Court case, which had more impact on later legal reasoning behind Federal gun control than these Acts.

          • totalitat

            But the posts HAVE shifted

            But that wasn’t what we were talking about — you denied Roosevelt had done any gun control laws and I pointed out how badly wrong you were.

            Badly, badly wrong, all handwaving about Sam Rayburn aside (note that there had been an assassination attempt on FDR while he was governor, which made him very directly concerned with regulating gun sales)

            Very true

            Correct! Which is why your logic was terribly wrong. Note: your logic, not mine (this is important for the next answer).

            What does that then say about modern so-called assault weapons, which are not an inconsequential market?

            If you think the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun, then it suggests that assault weapons are covered as well (whatever their market share).

            But that’s your logic, not mine, so I’m quite happy to leave ownership of that logic and its horrific consequences to you.

            and the actual legislative history of the passage is unknown to me

            Oh, for God’s sake, just do some research. It would make you look less uninformed.

          • TomD

            I did the research, as best I could without going to a law library. Unfortunately many details from the pre-internet age are not readily available on the internet.

            “But that wasn’t what we were talking about — you denied Roosevelt had done any gun control laws and I pointed out how badly wrong you were.”
            I’m not going back to the site to read my original post, but I’m pretty sure it was not a blanket denial. If I wrote “I’m not aware that FDR…” then only twisting could turn that into a denial.

            “note that there had been an assassination attempt on FDR while he was governor”
            Yes I’m aware of that. Still doesn’t change things regarding Congress.

            “But that’s your logic, not mine”
            No, I cited your logic that dismissed my weak excusing of the 1934 Act. You are now arguing both sides of the argument, accepting your logic when you choose to apply it and dismissing your logic when I applied it to a similar but not identical situation. That’s typical troll behavior. Unless, of course, you really didn’t mean what you wrote about the constitution, which would mean you were baiting, and that too is troll behavior.

            I don’t think we are going to have anything of substance to say from here on. Adios dude.

          • totalitat

            I did the research, as best I could without going to a law library. Unfortunately many details from the pre-internet age are not readily available on the internet.

            That you are incompetent at searching is not a good defense.

            I’m not going back to the site to read my original post,

            What you said was:

            “What gun control legislation did FDR write? I’m unaware of any. It sounds like you are propagating a myth”

            That’s a denial.

            Yes I’m aware of that. Still doesn’t change things regarding Congress

            And a drowning man may hope that a ship passes by. Doesn’t mean it will, and it doesn’t mean that your repeated invocations of “Well, Congress might have…” absent any evidence are actually meaningful.

            No, I cited your logic that dismissed my weak excusing of the 1934 Act

            Nope…still your logic.

            troll

            Ah, yes, the defense of the loser. “You’re a troll!” No, I’m kicking your butt around the room and you don’t like it.

            I don’t think we are going to have anything of substance to say from here on. Adios dude.

            Dude, you haven’t said anything of substance yet.

            It’s always a pleasure to slap a right winger around and watch them tear up and run from the room. Thanks for the entertainment.

          • TomD

            It was a denial based on my admitted ignorance (“I am unaware…”). You have snidely and arrogantly changed that to a denial via more malign reasons. You are a nasty SOB who enjoys kicking people, and you even admit it.

            Loser? I lost a debate because I was unprepared, not specifically with the facts (which I could have mustered if it were that important to me), but because I underestimated your skills at twisting words. Frankly you write like a law school graduate.

          • totalitat

            Wow. So the “adios” lasted less than a day. Way to be a man of your word.

            You are a nasty SOB who enjoys kicking people, and you even admit it

            I’m a nasty SOB who enjoys (verbally and metaphorically) kicking people who act like the worst kind of rightwing nutjobs, as in this thread. And don’t act coy: I note that you pushed back hard at my comments, but let slide things like people using the phrase “Obama bin Biden,” which is plenty offensive on its own (and yes, you read that phrase, because you responded to one of the comments that contained it). Funny how you get all hot and bothered about someone from the left pushing back hard, but right wingers spouting offensive stuff gets an easy pass.

            I lost a debate because I was unprepared

            Do better next time.

          • TomD

            I have to say that as trolls go, you are one of the best I’ve seen.

          • totalitat

            I’m not a troll. What am I is someone who knows what they’re talking about, and dislikes people who don’t.

          • tiger

            Oh? So I’m a sociopath? And a lobby group? Stop Sandy Hook? Please elaborate how You stop a mass murrdering thief?

          • totalitat

            I’ve no idea whether you’re a sociopath, though your comments on this post are not encouraging. What I do know is that the NRA as a lobbying organization has become sociopathic.

            Please elaborate how You stop a mass murrdering theif?

            By ensuring that it’s difficult for him to get guns, especially ones that are designed for rapid fire.

            This Has Been Another In The Series ‘Easy Answers To Dumb Questions.’

          • tiger

            He murdered his own Mother and stole her guns. Once you jump that step, everything else is meaningless. It is like expecting him not to Jay walk or drive 55 in School Zone. Your easy answer is dumb.

          • totalitat

            He murdered his own Mother and stole her guns

            No, he didn’t. You’re thinking of the Sandy Hook killer. Jared Lee Loughner (the Giffords attacker) bought the gun he used after passing an FBI background check.

          • tiger

            We were talking Sandy Hook. You attacked the NRA and blamed them for stopping some magic law creation.

          • totalitat

            I can’t keep the threads straight — no, you’re right. Giffords is another area. So I’ll go back to my easy answer (and no, pointing out that he stole them from his mother does *not* nullify that answer).

        • tiger

          Now your going too far.

          • totalitat

            Oh, no! Am I? How terrible.

  • jp98632

    Quit naming Carriers after President’s! Recycle the names of honorable carrier’s of the past. I vote for Saratoga, Midway, Hornet, etc.

    • eddie046

      Totally agree! And how about honoring the original, the Langley or the ship that would not die the USS Franklin.

    • Jarhead

      Great idea……Princeton, CV-37, comes to mind with it’s one legged Navy Captain- — John Hoskins.

    • TomD

      USS Bunker Hill

  • Ron Rigdon

    Hands down, without doubt, no questions asked there should ALWAYS be a carrier named SARATOGA!!! We’ve had a Saratoga in the fleet since the revolutionary war! INVICTUS GALLUS GLADIATOR!!!

    USS Saratoga CV-60 Desert Shield/Storm Veteran!

    • Rocco

      Agreed

  • abhchelms

    Start renaming our carriers from those of the past!! Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and other carriers from our past!! Quit politicizing our carriers!! They deserve better than that!!

  • Kim Chul Soo

    ” have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships”? This is an understatement. The ultra liberal politicians, and presidents, have had a field day naming homosexuals, anti-Americans and other deviates. As a former Marine and member of a career Navy family, I found this beyond disgusting.

    • totalitat

      You mean, unlike the good rightwingers, who name their ships after people who sell arms to communists (Reagan)?

      • Kim Chul Soo

        Your screen name tells it all. I didn’t know dipshits would find this site.

        • totalitat

          Well, you found it, so you should have.

          • tiger

            Making friends is not your strength is it?

          • totalitat

            Given his original post, I’m remarkably happy not to be making friends with him.

  • Natalya

    I apologize this is off-topic, but I just read this:

    The US Navy will disestablish its combat camera units on Sept. 30, 2018, after 67 years of service to the navy and defense department.

    The move is part of an effort to cut costs amid budget constrains, according to a Navy Times report.

    Isn’t combat camera units just a bit useful? There were millions of $$$ wasted on those 3 extra ships the navy didn’t want among other things. Sad state of affairs.

    • TomD

      Doesn’t everyone have a cell phone now?

      Oh, I forgot, didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld basically rule that our combatants must now wear body cams when collecting ‘evidence’, since we can’t hold prisoners without trial and civilian standards of evidence must be used?

      /sarc off

    • tiger

      Seems like a bad idea. Combat Camera should stay.

  • johnbull

    Naming conventions do matter. If you read histories of World War II you know what type of ship a vessel is just by its name. Is it named after a state, it’s a battleship. Is it named after a fish, submarine. Is it named Raleigh or Phoenix, it’s a cruiser. There truly seems to be no convention at all now. For as decrepit as the Royal Navy has become, at least the Brits know how to name warships. Their new boomers are going to be the “Dreadnaught” class. Ours? Columbia for the cess-pool of corrupt politicians. I entirely agree about using historic names- Yorktown, Ranger, Constellation, etc. There’s tradition and pride in such names.

  • John B. Morgen

    I don’t expect Congress nor this administration will make any real improvements about naming warships of the United States Navy. Naming warships has been profoundly corrupted by years of political curry. The Royal Navy’s naming scheme is a lot better than what we ‘d have been using.

  • tiger

    Pacifists do not equal sheep.

    • totalitat

      Pacifists do, however, often think that guns are not useful.

      • tiger

        Not true. Ask Alvin York.

        • totalitat

          “often,” tiger, that’s why I said “often.” It’s a qualifier that makes a statement apply to less than 100% of the population it’s chatting about. Read up on it sometime.

  • tiger

    You jump conclusions minus enough Intel to make that call.

    • totalitat

      No, I think I have quite enough intel, thanks.

      • tiger

        Well, your as wrong as the CIA then.

        • totalitat

          Donald? Donald? Is that you?

  • tiger

    Racism and support for segregation? No…. We have had no qualms naming ships for Woodrow Willson or Robert E. Lee in this country.

  • tiger

    The report by very nature is based on historical names and events. Please do not push. You have generally turned the rest of the board off. At least I ‘m willing to converse with you.

    • totalitat

      I don’t particularly care what the report is by its very nature. So, to repeat myself, remember — and I know your attention span is limited — I’m talking about current ships.

      At least I ‘m willing to converse with you.

      I think you’re being really optimistic about what you’re doing.

  • Greg Schmitt

    Go back to the proud tradition of naming attack submarines after fish! Honor the great boats of the past.