Surprisingly Good Video by a 15 Year Old Conservative on the Second Amendment

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm old enough to remember centrist, pro-gun Democrat politicians. It wasn't even all that long ago. But in the modern party, there's no place for them.

John F. Kennedy was an NRA member.

 

[Pond James Pond]

My resistance to the Fairness Doctrine is that it is not a substantive outcome, but is an assertion of government authority, an end in itself. If you employ a corrupt means in order to strive for an end, you get a corrupted end as well.

I think I've made this point earlier, but I'll reiterate it: I'm not after a government arbiter.

I'm after balanced reporting, fact-based reporting, fact-checked reporting.

If a given position is given I want a reporting ethic that would make inviting opposing views to contribute should they choose.

And I want that because I believe that way lies a better, more fully informed public.

How that comes about, is less of an issue for me. I see private media do appalling reporting: some of it bemoaned on this very forum. I see state media reporting very well.

And I see the reverse in both cases too. Sometimes within the same organisations.

Who is the greater threat to free speech, a lazy and sloppy reporter or a media commissar?

My point is not about risking free speech. It is about making full use of it.

Not for the immediate benefit of the speaker, but the secondary benefit of free speech which is an exposure to many ideas, not just the main one, the preferred one, the convenient one.

Why aren't people angry about that?

Going back to the initial point of the thread more specifically together with my motive for posting: isn't telling that it's not debate, discussion and a regular exchange of views that has coaxed many to re-evaluate the ownership of guns, and therefore perhaps their view on the 2A, but rather a global pandemic that may kill many yet?

 

[zukiphile]

I think I've made this point earlier, but I'll reiterate it: I'm not after a government arbiter.

OK. That's what the Fairness Doctrine requires.

Who is the greater threat to free speech, a lazy and sloppy reporter or a media commissar?

My point is not about risking free speech. It is about making full use of it.

Not for the immediate benefit of the speaker, but the secondary benefit of free speech which is an exposure to many ideas, not just the main one, the preferred one, the convenient one.

Why aren't people angry about that?

Because they are actually exposed to as many ideas as they want.

I also believe in the benefit of exposure to many ideas, but the most sure way to get that diversity is to not shut voices out.

Going back to the initial point of the thread more specifically together with my motive for posting: isn't telling that it's not debate, discussion and a regular exchange of views that has coaxed many to re-evaluate the ownership of guns, and therefore perhaps their view on the 2A, but rather a global pandemic that may kill many yet?

People in a panic rarely make wise choices.

 

[Pond James Pond]

People in a panic rarely make wise choices.

You assume that it was a panicked reaction. I can't see how you'd have evidence to say that it is panic that motivates the thousands that have decided to buy a gun..

I think it was more likely urgency.

Concern, worry, feeling vulnerable and panic are not the same.

And I'd have thought that people realising their security through the authorities is not as inviolate as they had previously felt would be a good thing.

I also believe in the benefit of exposure to many ideas, but the most sure way to get that diversity is to not shut voices out.

I have repeatedly endorsed adding voices. I've not called for them to be silenced.

That's what the Fairness Doctrine requires.

The Fairness Doctrine illustrated my goal. It is by no means the only or even my preferred means. Another, which doesn't make people shudder at its existence, is fine by me.

If I gave the impression the Fairness Doctrine was the only way to achieve it, it was not my intent. I merely wanted to refer to a concept that was already known to make my point clearer.

Not sure it worked, if it is still seen as my goal.

 

[zukiphile]

Clarity has been my goal as well.

You assume that it was a panicked reaction. I can't see how you'd have evidence to say that it is panic that motivates the thousands that have decided to buy a gun..

I think it was more likely urgency.

I think we are seeing public policy driven by panic. At some level, fear of the unknown and unknowable future impact of this new illness is understandable, especially if one is part of a population vulnerable to the stress of this illness. Yet we are seeing something here other calm reflection as people strip stores of toilet paper and guns.

I'm all for people being armed. Buying whatever the gun store has left to protect from the toilet paper zombie apocalypse does not seem like a good long term strategy.

 

[zukiphile]

James, your in-box is full.