Protecting the second amendment by destroying the first amendment!!!

C

crossbones

Moderator
As we know, the media is, has and will continue to be against the second amendment and the rights of gun ownership. Maybe what we need to do is the same thing they are doing to us? That is to say that maybe we should start attacking the first amendment? Not with the goal of actually prohibiting free speech but with the goal of getting it into the thick heads of the media that if they attack our second we will attack their first. When they stop attacking our rights, we will stop attacking theirs. We can start by arguing the following..............

"What we need is media control. The situation as it is now gives us a few special interests in the form of the few big media outlets and their special interest owners. They care more about sensationalizing than real reporting. They care more about making a buck than the health and welfare of our children or our society. They don't care that their reporting is causing copycat killing by deranged children. Consider the recent spat of copycat crimes by children going into schools and killing children. This was almost unheard of 8 years ago and now all of a sudden it's a common occurance. Where are the children getting their ideas from????? I know of no responsible adult who would teach this to our children. But I do know of many violent television shows, cartoons, movies and news casts that have been proven to affect society negativly. These media moguls are only interested in making money above all else, to hell with the effect their programming has on our children, right?

Therefore, I suggest we start by giving the people (you and I) "REAL" freedom of speech and take that right out of the hands of the few big media special interests. I'm here to tell you that the media is a special interest in itself!! They need to be regulated too!! You know, those few owners like Ted Turner who seem to call all the shots as to what you see and hear. We need to have "TRUE" freedom of speech. Maybe a board of people from the community who are elected. They would make the decisions as to what is good and wholesome to show on television, the news or the movies (just like the few big media special interests are doing now to the harm of society in general and our children in particular!). TRUE FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY THE PEOPLE!! Not just the viewpoints of the select few big media special interests. Hell!! We don't need the first amendment. We don't need the second amendment either!! Right!?!? :D

Another good point! The media keeps pushing "Campaign Finance Reform". The problem with that is that if you are a member of the NRA or any other "special interest" (like AARP) you will no longer be able to contribute money toward your political concerns and you will be effectivly shut up, made irrelevant and your effective voice silenced. Then the only people left over who could speak for us would be the media and we know how they feel about gun control. We can also see the negative effect they have had on society. WELL!?! That's exactly their plan, to shut you up. That leaves only the big media and their "special interest" owners to speek for you. How's that for freedom! I say it's BULL. We need to get rid of the media special interest owners and give freedom of speech to the people thru an elected board that makes the decisions as to what you, I, our community and our children hear and see. TRUE FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY ELECTED OFFICE!! Not that of just the few special interest media owners!!

Maybe we need to require "WARNING LABELS" on every newscast and violent television show or movie with the following words............
WARNING: Watching scenes of blood, killing, schoolyard shootings, people killing people and all around general violence has been shown to cause adverse reactions in unstable people and long term damaging affects on American youth. It has also been shown to cause any number of copycat killings and murders by those people exposed to these graphic scenes of violence. Other effects on your children or outlook on life might include things like spiked hairdoos, self mutilation and body art, drug usage, and an alteration of opinion more in line with a liberal/socialist theology. These broadcasts have been shown to have a damaging effect on freedom and democracy. Adult supervision is recommended before exposing your children to this dangerous and negative influence. Do you know where your children are?

THE MEDIA IS MORE DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY THAN GUNS!! The pen is mightier than the sword! We need true freedom of speech by the people! Not just those few special interest media owners who seek to direct society to their vison and to the proven, harmfull effect they have on society. They can no longer be trusted with the public responsibilities that freedom of speech demands. Just like gun owners can no longer be trusted with the freedom of gun ownership and the public responsibilities that demads.

So there you have it. We use the same argument they use on us against them! And everyone intuitivly knows the negative effect the media has had on society. Time we start giving them some of their own medicine and regulate them, take away some of their power and put it in the hand of the people, not just the few irresponsible media owners!




[This message has been edited by crossbones (edited May 30, 2000).]
 
I've been doing that very thing the last few months...I wait until "they" interpret the 2nd by stating the founders meant muskets and didn't envision modern weapons (they always do, too...so predictable :))....then I immediately state that then therefore the 1st pertains only to the live spoken word and newsprint; since radio, TV, movies, recordings and the internet were not envisioned by the founders either. When they see I am serious ( I can be very convincing), they begin to think rather than emote.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I e-mailed the NRA about this once too. I asked if this would not be a good idea to let the media know that if they continue to attack our 2nd then they can be damn sure we'll go after their first. I really don't want to just start dropping the amendments like that but my point is, they use the 1st to say they should be allowed anywhere to get the "scoop". Well if they want to play that way then I say we start pushing for restrictions on their access to certain areas and events. I still don't know how a group that relys on an amendment like they do can go after another amendment "for the children". So I guess it's OK to show a 4 year old some guy spilled all over the street from a car wreck but by golly you better not have to look at a gun.

By the way the NRA never replied.
 
Again, I have to speak up.

Again, this UTTER FALLACY that the news stations to which you refer need the first amendment.

The first amendment protects speech repugnant to the government or the majority. If you were paying attention, the media attacks freedom of speech more than guns.

In Russia/Soviet Union, Pravda didn't need freedom of speech laws - recently "independent" media outlets were raided in Russia, it is this type that need protection.

So get rid of the first amendment. CNN becomes a national institution, and Matt Drudge goes to jail.


Battler.
 
"It is a melancholy truth, that the suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood.
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle...
Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this.
Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2nd, probabilities. 3rd, Possibilities. 4th, Lies.
The first chapter would be very short."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to J. Norvell, 1807
 
David;
There is no suppression of FREEDOM OF SPEECH with my proposal. It is in fact enhanced because it puts the power of the media into the hands of elected representatives of the community. They cannot be politicians but have to be regular people like you and I selected by lotto from the community at large. The Ted Turners and Dan Rather's of the world will be history. They will no longer have the power to intimidate our politicians. Politicians will no longer have to put a finger in the air to test the political winds. Laws will be made on principle. A decent principle lacking with today's media that was part of the media in Jeffeson's day. The media's biased reporting and liberal viewpoints will be balanced by the views of society in general and not just the special interst views of a select, filty rich, manipulating band of media eletists who know better what's good for you than you do! All the money in the world won't help them anymore to control society or politicians. We need TRUE freedom of speech as expressed by the people at large, not just the special interest viewpoints as expressed by a few filty rich media owners who want to ban our right to bear arms and who will stop at nothing to acheive it.

David; The media as it exists makes a wrong. Putting the power of the press in the hands of the people makes a RIGHT! Why do you want to defend the few, rich medias owners and their anti freedom message?? Why not give TRUE freedom of speech to the people intead of limiting it to only those with the billions needed to express a viewpoint? By-the-way, if the media succeeds in eliminating the second amendment, you will, in effect, have rule by the few super rich who know better what is good for you than you do. My opinion is that if the second is lost, ALL IS LOST! So why not go for it and take the power out of the hands of the elite?
 
Karansas;
You said (quoted)
"It is a melancholy truth, that the suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood.......
Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle... (that polluted vehicle is the hands of the few media elite who control what you see and hear)

Thomasd Jefferson knew then what only some are learning now.......... how the power of the the press, the media, is in the hands of a few filty rich media owners who want to direct society towards their views. The state of our society is indicitative of their polluted values and their effect on society is clear. They have chosen wrong in attacking the second as it is the last bulwark to our freedoms. One needs only to look at our youth for proof of their immoral, corruptive influence.

It's time we took control of the media away from the few special interests and put it into the hands of the people!! Our continued freedom depends on it!
 
I don't care how stupid the press gets it would be TOTAL INSANITY to even go anywhere near the first amendment. :(
IMHO we as supporters of the 2nd amendment should never do anything that MIGHT weaken any amendment.

------------------
A Life Well Lived Is The Best Revenge!
 
You are absolutly right mzanghetti, we do in fact need to keep protecting the few, elite media owners. We need to keep supporting their attacks on the constitution. They can attack us but, by God, we cannot attack them!! That would be against freedom. Right? WELL?? What about their attacks on the second amendment, the rights of property owners? HHHMMMMMM??????

Do we idly stand by while they trample us??

[This message has been edited by crossbones (edited May 31, 2000).]
 
Hey DC, don't you mean that the first admendment applies to publications printed on a FLATBED press? Old Ben Franklin never saw a rotary press like the ones they got in today's printing plants!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top