Here Comes the Gun and Speech Legislation

Yep, I keep telling you people there are no exceptions to "Shall not be infringed."

actually the SC has ruled that there are more than one exception to that clause. You can't own nuclear arms for example or assault rifles at least in some states.

Furthermore the entire right to bear arms is predicated on your position in a state militia.

Read it and weep:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you are not part of a militia, or might not be a part of a militia, then you have no constitutional right to bear arms.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Your argument is invalid. Glad we've settled that.
 
Yesterday on Fox News, Bob Brady announced he would introduce a bill to outlaw the use of crosshairs, targets, and other 'inflammatory' graphics as related to candidates or other political figures. In light of him explaining that he had no proof that such has ever inspired any form of violence, he would rather be safe than sorry.

I posted the following on another thread that immediately reverted to just another 2nd amendment rights gun thread and I hope this one will focus on the free speech issue.


Tens of millions of people listen to Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage et al every weekday and also read Malkin, Coulter, and others equally as provocative. And though their audiences are tiny by comparison, none are any more explicit in their rhetoric or any more negative toward those they criticize than are Olbermann, Matthews, Maher, some of the people on the View, etc. etc. etc. And words like 'target' or 'crosshairs' are commonplace and often used.

And that doesn't even include the other talking heads during political seasons who use all manner of "inflammatory" rhetoric.

Wouldn't you think if such rhetoric had any power to inspire violence that we would see wholesale violence with so much exposure and so many hours devoted to political criticism?

Bob Brady (D -PA) on Fox this morning said he wanted to ban all graphics showing crosshairs or targets on congressional seats, states, anything related to politics. He didn't know if these had influenced anybody to violence but he wanted to be 'safe instead of sorry'.

So this morning Jack Shafer at Slate, not exactly the last bastion of conservatism, opposed this kind of extremist government control and defended heated political rhetoric:

For as long as I’ve been alive, crosshairs and bull’s-eyes have been an accepted part of the graphical lexicon when it comes to political debates. Such “inflammatory” words as targeting, attacking, destroying, blasting, crushing, burying, knee-capping, and others have similarly guided political thought and action. Not once have the use of these images or words tempted me or anybody else I know to kill. I’ve listened to, read—and even written!—vicious attacks on government without reaching for my gun. I’ve even gotten angry, for goodness’ sake, without coming close to assassinating a politician or a judge.

From what I can tell, I’m not an outlier. Only the tiniest handful of people—most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds—can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer. . . .

. . . .Any call to cool “inflammatory” speech is a call to police all speech, and I can’t think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper’s in 1995, “The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say.” Rauch added, “Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights.”

Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I’ll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me. . . .
The awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

What do you think. Imagery, metaphors, graphics, rap, lyrics to songs, violent video games, movies, television shows, etc. should ALL be censored/banned to prevent people being incited to violence? Should any?

Or is this another government grab for power and a frontal assault on First Amendment rights?
 
It is a different thing for some wackjob to just open fire on an unarmed crowd just to kill one person who may have supported mass murder programs...Eugenics and Infanticide.... If our Founders acted in such a manner we would still be in England....
 
McCarthy can be excused. I can't imagine she has ever recovered from the death of her husband, or the injury of her son....I know I wouldn't. It is no surprise she is sensitized to gun violence and seeks to end it.
McCarthy is an idiot of the first order. She introduces this legislation every single session of Congress. It promptly goes nowhere. It is a waste of everyone's time. She doesn't even know what she's talking about but wants it banned anyway.
She is hardly the only person to have family gunned down by a maniac. Two women (one I am personally acquainted with) had that experience and became staunch supporters of the right to keep and bear arms for private citizens.
 
Too bad someone in the crowd wasn't armed. I heard that someone did show up right after they had subdued the shooter, but didn't draw his weapon because things were under control. Imagine that, a responsible gun owner.

jeezus

I'll await your self righteous indignation when Congress provides members with more armed protection.

Professional security people are somewhat different than a crowd full of fat loons with pistols.
 

I'll await your self righteous indignation when Congress provides members with more armed protection.

Professional security people are somewhat different than a crowd full of fat loons with pistols.

Giffords was surrounded by fat loons without pistols? Professional security people, yeah, right. You obviously do not hold a concealed weapons permit. Go live in England. if you don't like the public carrying.
 
New laws on fresh graves is always wrong
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq6bX8Lpa5s[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWIIrp7NkA[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn2wo6ZtFSk[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71PoFXMJiF8[/ame]
 
"Discoveries at Loughner's home in southern Arizona, where he lived with his parents in a middle-class neighborhood have provided few answers to what motivated him." - Military: Ariz. shooting suspect failed drug test - Yahoo! News

Throw the parent's asses in jail too. If you let someone living under your roof own a gun with that level of mental issues, you should go to jail.

Um.. no. He was an adult and is responsible for his own actions. This is not a road we want to start going down.
 
McCarthy can be excused. I can't imagine she has ever recovered from the death of her husband, or the injury of her son....I know I wouldn't. It is no surprise she is sensitized to gun violence and seeks to end it.
McCarthy is an idiot of the first order. She introduces this legislation every single session of Congress. It promptly goes nowhere. It is a waste of everyone's time. She doesn't even know what she's talking about but wants it banned anyway.
She is hardly the only person to have family gunned down by a maniac. Two women (one I am personally acquainted with) had that experience and became staunch supporters of the right to keep and bear arms for private citizens.

McCarthy knows what she is talking about. She has a dog in this fight and understands the impact of gun violence. Her opinions are as relevant as any NRA funded politicians
 
"Discoveries at Loughner's home in southern Arizona, where he lived with his parents in a middle-class neighborhood have provided few answers to what motivated him." - Military: Ariz. shooting suspect failed drug test - Yahoo! News

Throw the parent's asses in jail too. If you let someone living under your roof own a gun with that level of mental issues, you should go to jail.

Um.. no. He was an adult and is responsible for his own actions. This is not a road we want to start going down.

By all accounts, this kid was batshit crazy. His parents heard his rants on a daily basis and knew that he was armed.

For their own safety and the safety of others, they should have done something about it. They can't legally prevent him from getting a gun. But they can prevent him from having a gun in their house
 

Forum List

Back
Top