Respectfully and in the spirit of debate, I agree with you. The constitution is wrought out of whole cloth and it should be protected in that light. As gun owners and constituional supporters we agree that we must protect ALL of the constituion.
The first amendment supporters (media, hollywood, newspapers, magazines) do NOT, I repeat, John, "DO NOT" share those same sentiments. At virtually every turn, those whose rights are protected by the first amendment to the constitution (the media, newspapers, magazines, etc), that is to say "first amendment supporters" use that right to take away the rights of all of us with their attacks on the second amendment.
They truly belive that the second amendment is an anacronism, a vestige of another age and not deserving of inclusion in the human rights of society. Thus it is that those who champion the first amendment use their rights to deprive you of your second amendment.
There are 270 million people in the United States. The second amendment gives 270 million the right to bear arms. The first amendment gives those same 270 million the right to free speach.
In practice only a small percentage of those 270 million people own major media outlets or have a direct controlling interest in them. In actual practice, only a small percentage of people own media outlets and thus only a small percentage have control over what YOU see and hear as news.
This gets me to one of my questions. Though hypothetical, what IF you were made to choose between the second and first amendments? Do you feel more secure in knowing that the few people who control the media (lets say there there are 5 million people who excersize some measure of control of the media) OR do you feel more secure in knowing that 265 million people have the means to guarantee ALL of our freedoms? I, personally, would prefer that our freedoms remain in the hands of 265 million people instead of the hands of a few. The second amendment was designed to secure ALL of our freedoms and that means that we can use it against ANYONE that threatens those freedoms. The defenders of the first amendment who use their right to deny the freedom of second amendment proponents are subject to the same ultimate control as any despotic or tyrannical government would be subject to control by the force of arms.
Interestingly, I become part of the solution if I can make people realize that they can loose their first amendment rights if they disparage our second amendment rights. I would like nothin more than to walk up to Shumer, Feinstien, Clinton and other gun grabbers and say............
"SHUT UP!" YOU CAN'T TALK". "NOW, HOW DOES IT FEEL TO LOOSE A CHERISHED RIGHT"? DO YOU NOW SEE WHAT GUN OWNERS FEEL LIKE WHEN YOU TRY TO TAKE AWAY OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS? YOU HAVE USED YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DENY MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT. HOW DOES IT FEEL NOW THAT YOU DON"T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT??
Of course we don't want to loose ANY of our rights but if forced to choose what would you pick? Preserving a right for a few media moguls or preserving a right for 265 million people?
You could ask me to go out and influence 270 million people. Well just how do you propose I do that like that? I would have to own a number of major media outlets to excersize at least some control. I don't own a major media outlet, never will, and have no hope of ever promulgating my views to 270 million people. I have influenced those around me in a positive pro gun way but still, how am I going to compete against a media who predominantly is anti gun and anti second amendment and has the eyes and ears of a vast majority of Americans for most of the four or five hours that they watch TV every day? What are you going to do? Stand up and fight or die for the right of the first amendment minority to deprive the right of a 270 million majority the right to bear arms?
I think the best way to preserve ALL of of our rights is to threaten the rights of first amendment supporters just like they are threatening the rights of second amendment supporters. It's time to put the fear of loosing some rights into their hearts. Then maybe they will realize the value of ALL of our rights and thus stop their attacks against gun owners. The only other way is to put a gun to their head and demand fair reporting and you know that ain't gonna happen. They will continue to attack your second amendment right. I say we should fight to deny their first amendment rights. Then maybe they will stop and say........
MAYBE GUN OWNERS ARE RIGHT? MAYBE WE NEED TO PROTECT ALL OF OUR RIGHTS INSTEAD OF JUST THOSE WE HOLD DEAR?
Put em on the spot and threaten them with loss of their rights.
In a sense, what you are doing is standing up against first amendment supporters who have little regard for the rights of others. By standing up and protecting the media as it exists today in this country you are handing your enemy a stick so he can beat you over the pointed head with it!
What tactics can be used against the media? WELL, recently, the house proposed, as part of the juvenile justice bill, (clinton did the same thing and tried to steal another Republican issue) a study on the effects of media violence on our youth. Along with that, there is a proposal to ban the sale of violent video games, movies and music to people under 18 years of age. They also want to require all music publishers to print the lyrics of their songs on the covers of all CD's, tapes, etc. They want to make it a crime to let a young person into a movie theatre if the movie is rated "R" or better and make it illegal for them to rent a movie if it has the same ratings. NOW, if that is NOT a restriction on the first amendment then I don't know what is. This is a direct result of the Littleton School Killings (an event many consider media driven because of its copycat nature). If the house proposal to study the effect of violence in movies and TV on children proves out a conclusive link (as 300 other studies already have shown) then you can expect more types of laws restricting the first amendment. Well, I say hurrraayyy!! It's about friggen time that the same media who attempts to restrict my second amendment rights get their turn in the barrel and suffers a loss of some of their first amendment rights. Think it will get them to see the picture? Think it will get them to begin and understand what gun owners have been going through all these years? Think it will get them to maybe change and understand that ALL, I repeat, ALL of our freedoms are at stake here? I'd like to address a bunch of media moguls and ask them "HOW DOES IT FEEL GUYS? HOW DO YOU LIKE IT? THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL COOL DOWN OUR RETORIC AND BEGIN PROTECTING ALL OUR RIGHTS? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, YOU PROMISE TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS AND I'LL PROMISE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS! IF YOU DON'T WANNA DO THAT, THEN I'M GONNA KEEP FIGHTING TO DENY YOU THE RIGHTS YOU HOLD DEAR JUST LIKE YOU FIGHT TO DENY ME THE RIGHTS I HOLD DEAR.
It can only hasten the day of reconing that will eventually befall us if they suceed in eliminating the second amendment and I, for one, ain't gonna let it happen. I'm gonna fight to restrict their first amendment rights to hasten the day. I DON'T REALLY WANNA DO THAT, but I'm being forced to do that. That's the main point of my argument. If everyone had the same attitude, THEY WOULD STAND UP AND LISTEN.
The fact is that many children and many of the uneducated do not know how to excersize personal responsiblity and in fact are the product of the things they see and hear.
They see and hear things that are not very responsible from the media.
Littleton proves it.
I say regulate the media to ensure children are not adversly influenced and then put forth a set of laws that guarantee FREEDOM and EQUALITY of the press to ensure the American people are not fed a bunch of misleading, freedom loosing news!
The last thing we want is government control of the media.
That's exactly why we need a set of laws that ensures that no "ONE" group of people is in control of the media. For freedom to reign, we need to ensure that all voices are equally heard and the best way to do that is with a set of laws that guarantee an equal voice for ALL.
When you think about it, there are laws that guarantee racial equality, gender equality, economic equality, equal education, equal employment, non-discrimination laws (to make it all equal), equal rights is the order of the day..........all this mostly promulgated by the liberals (and rightly so) and the media they control. I think it is time we took this idea a little further.
EQUALITY OF THE PRESS!!!! It's time to champion this cause!!! HAR! HAR! HAR! HAR! (with an evil laugh at the justice thus brought forth!!!)
PS you heard it here FIRST, folks!!
[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited June 16, 1999).]