I don't see the problem. Just require all media to be registered...

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

And deny the permit to anyone with a criminal record.

Make it a felony with possibility of probation on first offense to be caught with an unregistered media outlet.

And make it to where any person with criminal record who gets caught posting their opinions, no matter if it was with the intent to commit a crime, gets locked up for a long time.

What's wrong with this reasoning?

I went back to lurking some time ago, but I couldn't help but poke holes in this one. I support freedom of all of my rights -- not just the convenient or easy ones.

Can you imagine if we looked at the 1st Amendment in the same way we do the 2nd? And yes, the pen is far mightier than the sword.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. The pen does not shoot down 9 people in a mall

The idea behind it is to protect the citizens of our community.

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

2. The pen leads to revolution

And advocates for all sorts of ugly things -- threats to abortion providers, harassment to minorities of all sorts. It gave cover to every dictator or helped lead to revolution.

If you want to kill nine, a gun is nice. If you want to kill 9 million, you need a pen.

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. What is your point?

It's wrong to limit gun ownership?

That it?

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

6. It's wrong to limit rights in general

I am just as opposed to crazy plans to limit our rights to free speech -- free speech zones for instance -- as I am to crazy plans to limit my ability to defend those rights.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. Oh, so criminals need guns so they can defend their right to free speech.

Gotcha.

Maybe you should revisit your profile and read the comment you made.

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

10. As you know

No rights are absolute. But I oppose the mad rush to limit ANY of our rights to penalize the innocent to protect against people who might eventually be guilty.

Maybe you should revisit YOUR profile and worry about all of our rights.

[Harper_is_Bush]

14. So nobody - criminal/insane/otherwise - should have their gun rights limitted?

Yes or no?

The post you attempted to mock with your parody was calling for the denial of gun ownership to criminals.

It's implied that criminals have been convicted, so I'm unsure what you meant by "penalize the innocent to protect against people who might eventually be guilty".

I know what you're talking about by "penalize". You're talking about gun registration, correct?

Those poor poor gun owners, having to register their guns. How terribly sad. What a tragic penalty for them, and a trampling of their rights. Good grief.

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

18. I think my post is pretty darn clear

No rights are absolute means, well, most people know what that means.

No, the post I was mocking called for universal registration of guns. When applying that to free speech, it is shown to be ludicrous.

Making law-abiding citizens register their rights is wrong.

Now, let me see your registration. You posted a thought.

[Harper_is_Bush]

35. AGAIN you avoid a clear, honest question!

I asked if you thought anyone - criminal/insane/otherwise - should have their gun rights limitted? Ever?
Maybe that was too complicated a question. Here's another one:

Should convicted criminals be allowed to own guns?

I'm afraid to say anything else here, because that will no doubt give you an opening to ignore my question, but I can't let this one go. You wrote:
"...the post I was mocking called for universal registration of guns. When applying that to free speech, it is shown to be ludicrous."
You are deluding yourself if you believe "universal registration of guns" can be applied to free speech (as in "universal registration of free speech"), and especially deluding yourself if you think your comparison has proved your point.

[Irreverend IX]

23. Remember the LA riots?

That incident was quite a bit more severe than 8 people being shot in a mall, and if the Rodney King video hadn't been broadcast, none of that would ever have happened. Wouldn't it be nice if all news outlets had to run their stories past a government censor who could veto anything that might cause public unrest?

[Evergreen Emerald]

31. people are responsible for their own actions.

The reason we are in Iraq is because of this philosophy.

There is a difference between words and killing people with weapons. If you believe that criminals who commit violent crimes, or crazy people who cannot be responsible for their actions deserve weapons then you are not a responsible citizen.

[Irreverend IX]

40. Guess what? It's already illegal for those people to have weapons.

Felons and people who have been adjudicated incompetent are already barred from owning guns. The lion's share of gun murders are committed by criminals who already have lengthy records and who got their guns illegally. Most of these killings are tied to the drug war, so legalizing drugs would do much more to cut down on murder than any anti-gun legislation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

3. You know what would help? If you posted the link to the topic you're attempting to parody.

And stop me if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting the "right to bear arms" is not something that should ever be taken away, regardless of if a person has a criminal record or whatever he/she has done?

Your comparison of freedom of speech to the right to bear arms is more than a little faulty.

[sandnsea]

4. Most media is licensed

Just sayin.

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

7. Huh?

Where is the license that they need to produce my Washington Post or DU for that matter? Media that has limited spectrum -- TV and radio -- has licenses. That's it.

[sandnsea]

13. Internet and wireless

Everything except print is based on some kind of licensing somewhere along the line.

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

19. Somewhere along the line

Actually I think that's a Billy Joel line.

But by your logic, so is everything. I am typing on a computer. Somebody somewhere got a business license or an import license or something. Does that mean I am licensed? Heck, if that is the case, the guns are already licensed. So no need for further legislation.

[sandnsea]

24. They generally are, at the gun shop

Which is why the entire registration argument is stupid to begin with. They can already be tracked, it just takes more time, that's all. And those who go get a conceal carry license are the funniest of all. Just stick on your forehead "I'm a gun zealot". Who do you think "they" are going to come after first? :crazy:

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

29. Have you ever bought a gun?

I doubt it.

[sandnsea]

33. lol, that's an answer

I lived in rural Montana for 20 years. I live in rural Oregon now. I know gun manufacturers. I know gun dealers. I know reloaders. I know about guns.

[Smith_3]

8. lol, how does this relate?

the 2nd ammendment guarentees you the right to own the gun. it doesn't guarantee you the right to own it unregistered. requiring registration does not mean revoking the right of ownership.

as for media: you are by definition required to "register" for them. your phone company knows that you have a phone and which websites you access. your cable company knows that you have cable. hell, for heavens sake, you even have to "register" to get water running in your house...

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

11. OK, go ahead and register your media as well

The 1st doesn't guarantee any such rights either. I don't like government messing around with either the 1st, 2nd or any other.

I hate gun debates. But when will people learn that the Constitution as a whole protects us and we have to defend it in its entirety?

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. How is requiring gun registration undermining the US Constitution, exactly? n/t

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

20. Same way free speech zones do

nt

[Harper_is_Bush]

30. You just can't give a straight answer to a question it seems.

Guns are guns. Answer the question without resorting to comparisons to "free speech", please.

How does gun registration limit anyone's Constitutional right?

Are you not allowed to bear arms because you have to register your gun?

:shrug:

[Smith_3]

16. my "media" are registered and so are yours.

unless of course you are tapping into your neighbours wireless lan.

when will people learn that the idea that only because they live out in the woods, the government will not be able to locate them and "meddle" in their business, is an illusion? just by having a permanent recidency you are already "registered" in at least five different places into which federal investigators can tap if they wish. its called "burocracy" and is a fundamental necessity for modern society.

when will people learn that the days in which there was one cop for an entire county, and where all matters of importance were handled by the moonshiners, preachers and local kkk branch, are absolutely over and will never come back? (unless you emmigrate to mars in your home-made flying saucer)

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

22. The government doesn't approve DU

It's not licensed in that way. And it shouldn't be.

Why turn over the same rights to the government on guns?

[Smith_3]

26. DU abides by the law. Read the message board rules.

If DU called for violent overthrow of the government and the adminstrators were convicted of felonies, then chances are DU would be shut down.

Its called "democracy". As long as it works the "registrations" are not gonna hurt you. Once it fails, your illusionary perception of "not being registered" is not going to protect you either. you enevitably already are "registered" in several ways. mainly for your own good.

[Tejas]

12. the equivalent of MSM spray & pray should be a capitol offense

Racing to be the first with a video of a fatal accident scene showing vehicles and surroundings etc before the relatives have been notified should be criminal.

<mother watching the news>


"Breaking news...Jack, we're here at the scene of a horrendous fiery crash, officials have told us the young woman driving the car cried for help but died moments later. Her name is being withheld pending notification of family."
"Thanks Jill, now on to our top story..."



Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry...

[Oeditpus Rex]

36. Why should that be a crime?

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. GET YOUR MEDIA REGISTRATION FORMS HERE:

MEDIA AT SHOT SHOW . . .

Media professionals wishing to attend the 2007 SHOT Show, slated for Jan. 11-14 in Orlando, may now apply for media credentials. Guidelines and the official media registration form may be downloaded from www.shotshow.org or by clicking here. http://www.shotshow.com/images/100300/2008PDF/2008SHOTShowReg_v2.pdf

http://www.davidsonsonline.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=8441

Lol. Those damned gun show organizers, requiring people to register to get their constitutional rights! The nerve!

[Irreverend IX]

21. That's registration to attend a private event...

You do know the difference between registration to enter private property or receive a service from a private company and registering something with the federal government, right?

In Italy, I heard the government was floating a proposal to require all Italian bloggers to register with the federal government for the privilege of blogging. Any blogger who strayed too far from the party line would have the privilege revoked. That's what would come of applying the US's firearms legislation policy to speech rights.

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. So...?

It's still media registration. And it was a joke.

And I'm not advocating "applying the US's firearms legislation policy to speech rights."

I have no problem with firearms being registered (do you?) and I think the OP comparison of registering firearms to registering the media is ridiculous.

[Irreverend IX]

43. Guns should be no more regulated than speech.

Some amount of chaos and violence is inevitable in a free society. Anyone who truly cares about freedom must learn to live with that. However, the amount of violence in the US is exacerbated by the drug war and exploitation of the poor. Gun laws will not stop criminals from getting weapons, but if the aforementioned conditions are alleviated, crime will plummet.

I oppose gun registration because it has been used as a tool for confiscation many times in the past. It's happened in the UK, Australia, certain US states, and many other places. And with 200 million+ unregistered guns already in civilian hands, registration will just cause the black market in guns to grow, and violent crime would increase as turf wars erupt over that underground industry.

[Harper_is_Bush]

45. well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

The USA is not Austrailia or the UK, and fears about confiscation of guns from legal owners are a bit overplayed by the rightwing.

[Paladin]

25. About As Persuasive As Most Gun Activist Comparisons....

...which is to say, not very persuasive at all.

Welcome to DU; looks like you're part of the latest batch of guncentric posters that have shown up. Funny how you guys seem to appear about the same time, in bunches, spouting such similar talking points. I wonder what accounts for that?

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

28. I've been here

Got too busy to post. Stopped trying. But the post I referenced pissed me off.

If I had the energy to bother, I'd point out to the mods your implication. I'll let others deal with that.

You aren't worth it.

[HEyHEY]

32. You can't deny someone the right to be a reporter because of a criminal record.

That's silly. I mean, talk about facism.

[Oeditpus Rex]

37. Yeah, dude

You'd be out of a job.




:hide:

[HEyHEY]

38. haha

Plus, there's alot of ex cons that would probably make good reporters after going through the system and what not.

[Oeditpus Rex]

39. I used to work with one

Dude did something like four years in Soledad on a drug conviction. Went to college on the extension program at the prison (and made the president's list). When he got out, he joined the college newspaper staff and later became editor, and eventually wound up with the local daily. Damned good reporter.

[Orangepeel]

34. members of the media do go through background checks to get particular media passes

all rights are limited to a certain degree. The argument is always over the degree.

[Irreverend IX]

41. That's not a limit on what they can write...

That's a limit on where they can go and who they can have access to. White House press corps reporters need quick access to the president's residence, so of course they have to go through serious background checks. But the papers they work for can write just about anything they want to without civil or criminal penalties, as long as it isn't death threats, slander of a private citizen, etc.

[Orangepeel]

44. But they still have to be "registered"

The implicit parallel was registering guns, not using guns.

:shrug:

[Irreverend IX]

46. There's no parallel whatsoever.

When people talk about "gun registration," they're usually talking about a law that would require all gun owners to register their guns with the state or federal government. No one has to register communication devices with the state or federal government.

Your post mentioned that reporters have to "register" and pass background checks to get certain press passes. Those press passes grant them access to exclusive venues, like the White House and the press box at sports stadiums. The First Amendment does not guarantee reporters access to anyplace they want to go, so the comparison is meaningless. To argue that exclusive press passes are a restriction on First Amendment rights is like saying that exclusive shooting clubs that only allow access by paying members is a restriction on Second Amendment rights.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. the pen can kill people in a few seconds? you read an article all of a sudden you are violently dead

c'mon now. make an honest argument.