S.C. lawmaker proposes registry for journalists
- Thread starter chimo
- Start date
Spats McGee
Administrator
Nobody *needs* a word processing program. The First Amendment only applies to printing presses. Word processing programs allow people to crank out hundreds of words per minute, spilling dangerous ideas everywhere.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Agreed. My immediate reaction was that the proposed bill was an attempt to showcase the hypocrisy of the media.
As to it's not being comparable -- except for the four (?) states that now have so-called "constitutional" carry, it is comparable. All the other states require a license or permit before allowing their citizens to exercise a "fundamental" (Heller) right that the Constitution itself says "shall not be infringed." If I have to take a class, take a test,pass a background check, and then periodically buy a piece of paper/plastic from the state before exercising the right, how is that NOT an infringement?
I don't want to ruin this thread with too many non-sarcastic posts, so iI will leave this at the bottom of the page.
Hypocrisy isn't the worst vice; even worse is a consistent disregard for civil liberties, even as it applies to the 1st Am.
With McCain-Feingold, Congress made a law prohibiting some speech despite the explicit prohibition in the COTUS against any law of that sort.
Worse, you had the same minority wing (Sotomayor replacing Souter) that dissented on the basis that corporations are so bad that Congress should be allowed to make laws abridging the freedom of speech in some circumstances.
AB said:
Hypocrisy isn't the worst vice; even worse is a consistent disregard for civil liberties, even as it applies to the 1st Am.
With McCain-Feingold, Congress made a law prohibiting some speech despite the explicit prohibition in the COTUS against any law of that sort.
Worse, you had the same minority wing (Sotomayor replacing Souter) that dissented on the basis that corporations are so bad that Congress should be allowed to make laws abridging the freedom of speech in some circumstances.
Double Naught Spy
New member
When we mimic the stupid stuff the opposition tries to do to us, it does not make us look more intelligent or help to justify our position, even if it is sarcasm.
I disagree. This is the very method the media has used for years to take down candidates they don't like, or protect the ones they do divert serious questions about their activities. If you question one of their favorites you instantly are ridiculed and decalred a whako conspiracy nut extremist, and teh questions are never answered.
kilimanjaro
New member
Satire is the hole in the stuffed shirt through which the sawdust slowly trickles.
I think I recall that as from H.L. Mencken.
Paranoid busybodies, the antigunners, need to be ridiculed. It's an effective technique.
There is no such thing as moral relativism when the antigun half of the equation are amoral, lying, scheming, hate-filled, Fascists. The worst thing that can happen to them is for them to become irrelevant to the general public.
If you want to look more intelligent, get a dog.
I think I recall that as from H.L. Mencken.
Paranoid busybodies, the antigunners, need to be ridiculed. It's an effective technique.
There is no such thing as moral relativism when the antigun half of the equation are amoral, lying, scheming, hate-filled, Fascists. The worst thing that can happen to them is for them to become irrelevant to the general public.
If you want to look more intelligent, get a dog.
We do. It's called the NRA, GOA and others.
The NRA is only as good as it's membership. People like to blame the NRA for "caving in" on the fight against oppressive anti-gun legislation. The problem is that the people who whine about this were not members of the NRA when this was going on. The NRA's membership was anemic back then compared to what it is now. And its members were not as concerned about protecting the 2nd Amendment. JOIN, CONTRIBUTE, and be an ACTIVE member. YOU get to make it what you want it to be. Life members and those who have been members for longer than 5 years get to vote! That's right, vote on who will run the organization.
kilimanjaro
New member
"like the NRA? The same NRA that has folded on things like background checks and has advanced the notion that getting government permission to carry a firearm is a good thing?"
Yes, that NRA. The very same bunch.
Ponder this for a while. Without the NRA, you would have needed a $200 transfer tax stamp and paperwork with every handgun beginning in 1934. You would have had to register your firearms, all of them, in 1968. NFA items would have been banned and confiscated in 1968. You might be lucky to live in a 'may issue' state, one of perhaps six or seven states, for carrying a pistol, should you be even luckier to be a pal of the local politicos, and have the $200 for the pistol tax laying around. The other three dozen states wouldn't have a permit system in the first place. The supreme courts in states with RKBA in their constitution would have been packed with judges who rule that RKBA doesn't apply to handguns, concealed carry, things like that. Your semi-auto rifles would have been banned in 1992 and there would have been no exceptions. Turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America.
Folded on background checks? Pardon me while I laugh. The choice was either NICS or ten-day waiting periods, with no exceptions.
You can bluster about absolute rights all you want from whatever ivory tower you choose to build for yourself, but the reality is that the NRA is the best guarantor of your RKBA, bar none. Even after the last half dozen horrible mass murders in this country, with constant media drumbeats for action, and an entire political party in favor of confiscation, the NRA is so powerful that the only way even weak and ineffective national gun control actions can be done is for the President to take unilateral action. Congress won't touch it.
Yep, that's weak all right. Lapdogs. Spineless eclairs.
I don't mean to berate you, but if you don't have the brains or the guts to stand up and join with your citizens to protect your rights, then you're not going to have them very much longer.
The NRA has 5 million members. With 10 million members, the Democrats would be sputtering about nothing but the minimum wage and global warming.
Yes, that NRA. The very same bunch.
Ponder this for a while. Without the NRA, you would have needed a $200 transfer tax stamp and paperwork with every handgun beginning in 1934. You would have had to register your firearms, all of them, in 1968. NFA items would have been banned and confiscated in 1968. You might be lucky to live in a 'may issue' state, one of perhaps six or seven states, for carrying a pistol, should you be even luckier to be a pal of the local politicos, and have the $200 for the pistol tax laying around. The other three dozen states wouldn't have a permit system in the first place. The supreme courts in states with RKBA in their constitution would have been packed with judges who rule that RKBA doesn't apply to handguns, concealed carry, things like that. Your semi-auto rifles would have been banned in 1992 and there would have been no exceptions. Turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America.
Folded on background checks? Pardon me while I laugh. The choice was either NICS or ten-day waiting periods, with no exceptions.
You can bluster about absolute rights all you want from whatever ivory tower you choose to build for yourself, but the reality is that the NRA is the best guarantor of your RKBA, bar none. Even after the last half dozen horrible mass murders in this country, with constant media drumbeats for action, and an entire political party in favor of confiscation, the NRA is so powerful that the only way even weak and ineffective national gun control actions can be done is for the President to take unilateral action. Congress won't touch it.
Yep, that's weak all right. Lapdogs. Spineless eclairs.
I don't mean to berate you, but if you don't have the brains or the guts to stand up and join with your citizens to protect your rights, then you're not going to have them very much longer.
The NRA has 5 million members. With 10 million members, the Democrats would be sputtering about nothing but the minimum wage and global warming.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
"No honest man needs a hard drive with a capacity of more than ten gigabytes."BarryLee said:
The sad part is the critics of the NRA on our side say the NRA "sold us out" when in fact all they did was not win completely.
The simple fact is that there have been times when some kind of gun control was absolutely going to become law. Despite all we could do.
The "sell outs" kept things from being WORSE, and you will never convince me otherwise.
Look at it this way, if you are fighting for the steering wheel trying to keep a fanatic from driving you off a cliff, sometimes the best you can manage is to crash into the uphill side. You take damage, but you don't go off the cliff.
Is that selling out???
Not to me.
The simple fact is that there have been times when some kind of gun control was absolutely going to become law. Despite all we could do.
The "sell outs" kept things from being WORSE, and you will never convince me otherwise.
Look at it this way, if you are fighting for the steering wheel trying to keep a fanatic from driving you off a cliff, sometimes the best you can manage is to crash into the uphill side. You take damage, but you don't go off the cliff.
Is that selling out???
Not to me.
My guess is that the pro-gun folks that vocally berate the NRA perceive them as "conservative" or "Republican". They see the NRA backing more politicians with an "R" rather than a "D" next to their names, and they don't like this.
Rather than coming right out and saying "I like what the NRA does, but they aren't supporting XYZ who is backed by my union (which is more important to me than gun rights), I can't support them," they justify their non-support based on old battles lost or compromised by the NRA. This is a dishonest and disingenuous position.
Rather than coming right out and saying "I like what the NRA does, but they aren't supporting XYZ who is backed by my union (which is more important to me than gun rights), I can't support them," they justify their non-support based on old battles lost or compromised by the NRA. This is a dishonest and disingenuous position.
My sense is that the sentiment is more often naive rather than dishonest.
It can be hard to communicate the details of negotiation and brinksmanship to someone who hasn't been there for all the work. If one isn't interested in the details, but also doesn't like the result, it may be easier to conclude that the better solution didn't manifest because it was "sold out".
This isn't peculiar to 2d Am. issues.
It can be hard to communicate the details of negotiation and brinksmanship to someone who hasn't been there for all the work. If one isn't interested in the details, but also doesn't like the result, it may be easier to conclude that the better solution didn't manifest because it was "sold out".
This isn't peculiar to 2d Am. issues.
scrubcedar
New member
Back in the day...
Down in Southern Colorado we used to have the, now mythical, animal the "conservative Democrat". This creature would have had high NRA ratings as well as normally a strong military background that led to an unwavering belief in the 2nd amendment.
My Father knew and hung around with these men (bringing me along frequently).I can remember such creatures when confronted with anti 2nd amendment rhetoric uttering some pretty insulting terms about the persons intelligence as well as (to them) the obvious lack of education involved.
The reason I bring this up is I think I remember something like this being floated as something to bring up in the Colorado legislature and being abandoned because the people who it was aimed at (big city anti-gun/non-conservative politicians of BOTH parties) simply would be incapable of seeing how it applied to them.
As I recall heads were sadly shaken across the board, another round was ordered, and the question was asked "Where are we hunting this weekend?"
As we talk about this I'm again reminded that we need to stand behind those who stand behind our rights regardless of the letter next to their name.
Down in Southern Colorado we used to have the, now mythical, animal the "conservative Democrat". This creature would have had high NRA ratings as well as normally a strong military background that led to an unwavering belief in the 2nd amendment.
My Father knew and hung around with these men (bringing me along frequently).I can remember such creatures when confronted with anti 2nd amendment rhetoric uttering some pretty insulting terms about the persons intelligence as well as (to them) the obvious lack of education involved.
The reason I bring this up is I think I remember something like this being floated as something to bring up in the Colorado legislature and being abandoned because the people who it was aimed at (big city anti-gun/non-conservative politicians of BOTH parties) simply would be incapable of seeing how it applied to them.
As I recall heads were sadly shaken across the board, another round was ordered, and the question was asked "Where are we hunting this weekend?"
As we talk about this I'm again reminded that we need to stand behind those who stand behind our rights regardless of the letter next to their name.
Last edited:
kilimanjaro
New member
There are a lot of gun-owning Democrats who are not NRA members, some have told me it's because the NRA is 'the enemy', and they would rather not deal with friends and acquaintances finding it out.
Last edited:
I agree with this. It's just that I wish they would be honest, come right out and say they don't like the NRA because they (perceive) them as supporting too many Republicans. Rather than claiming they don't support the NRA blaming it for "caving in", gun bans and other things that just aren't true when you look at the totality of the circumstances at the time.
It's fine to not want to give one cent to an organization that supports a politician(s) that you can't stand. It's not fine to be disingenuous about WHY you don't support the NRA if you are a knowledgeable gun owner.