Media registry gag exposes bias against 2nd Amendment

[cpgrad08]

As opposed to media-only state, which is much more honest.

Your proof.

 

[Crimefree]

"My concern is that an elected official publicly stated that he planned to introduce a bill to register and license journalists, with the threat of fines and jail time for violators. I can't allow that to happen. My organization, the New York Press Club, is a dedicated protector of the First Amendment and journalists' rights."

Contrast that with firearm organisations reaction and ask yourself why are they so goddamn complacent.

What goes through the mind of those organisations officials that allow them to abdicate their duty of protecting members rights which is the only thing that allows them to join and for the continuation of the organisation. It is like they have a death wish or simply could not care.

Obviously the press has a livelihood and business to protect where firearm organisations are mostly volunteers. However that is no excuse. Members need to kick some butt and build some fires under these officials who think they have no duty to protect the organisation and members interests.

 

[Crimefree]

While I would of course prefer that, abolishing the freedom of the press would be good even if it didn't. Pressocracy inherently discourages our rulers from responsible government. It's abolition would be beneficial in itself.

The first thing anybody wishing to control citizens does is silence the press. This assumes that the press is not sufficiently biased as to not need silencing but as oppression increases that silence is essential.

Right now most the press is convinced gun control is a good thing since gun control makes sure the media has news, feeding the media news and being available at a moments notice to give comment solicited or not.

The media has no need to keep a story going gun control does that for the media by offered opeds and opinion pieces delving into research and comment with comparisons and anything that can be related. Making mountains out of mole hills and rebutting the little opposition it gets.

The fact this hypocrisy was exposed seems to have not been noticed.

 

[Paleocon]

The first thing anybody wishing to control citizens does is silence the press.

Politics simply is the exercise of control over the citizens. Literally anyone who is a politician or anyone who attempts to influence a politician wishes to "control citizens". Whether or not such a person would silence the press depends on whether they belieive that the press should control the government.

 

[Crimefree]

Politics simply is the exercise of control over the citizens. Literally anyone who is a politician or anyone who attempts to influence a politician wishes to "control citizens". Whether or not such a person would silence the press depends on whether they belieive that the press should control the government.

You have a very unevidenced view of politics and politicians. It is not possible to "Influence" a politician into doing anything that will with certainty lose votes.

The only way to influence politics is to either offer what can increase power or have the capability of removing power.

If you can understand and apply first principles. The only currency of politics is power. Anything or claim that is contrary to that is not going to work.

The press controls peoples opinion. A bad opinion means no/less votes = loss of power.

Apparently you need some lessons in propaganda.

 

[Paleocon]

You have a very unevidenced view of politics and politicians. It is not possible to "Influence" a politician into doing anything that will with certainty lose votes.

Which is completely and utterly besides the point. The point was, any political activity is an attempt to "control citizens", so unless you're an anarchist, "controlling citizens" isn't bad.

The press controls peoples opinion. A bad opinion means no/less votes = loss of power.

Which is the point. In the current system, the press rules by this mechanism. It would be better if the press were deprived of this power over the state.

 

[cpgrad08]

Which is completely and utterly besides the point. The point was, any political activity is an attempt to "control citizens", so unless you're an anarchist, "controlling citizens" isn't bad.



Which is the point. In the current system, the press rules by this mechanism. It would be better if the press were deprived of this power over the state.

Only after your freedom of speech is deprived from you.

 

[Paleocon]

Only after your freedom of speech is deprived from you.

I'm not sure what precisely this is supposed to be a response to.

 

[cpgrad08]

I'm not sure what precisely this is supposed to be a response to.

An experiment, you so want other people's rights denied. So I'm just saying he should start off you as as experiment to see how well it goes.

 

[Paleocon]

An experiment, you so want other people's rights denied. So I'm just saying he should start off you as as experiment to see how well it goes.

1. You need to use betterer grammar.
2. I have no desire for exemption.

 

[cpgrad08]

1. You need to use betterer grammar.
2. I have no desire for exemption.

No exemption, just what you want, no human rights.

 

[Paleocon]

No exemption, just what you want, no human rights.

Beneficial is not, talking like Yoda.

 

[cpgrad08]

Beneficial is not, talking like Yoda.

Your the only one talking like Yoda.

 

[Paleocon]

Your the only one talking like Yoda.

Do you have anything of substance to say? As best I can tell, you don't really have anything coherent to say to me, because whenever I ask you to clarify one of your one-liners, you only respond with less and less coherence.

 

[cpgrad08]

Do you have anything of substance to say? As best I can tell, you don't really have anything coherent to say to me, because whenever I ask you to clarify one of your one-liners, you only respond with less and less coherence.

If that is incoherent too you, you may need to brush on your reading skills.

 

[Paleocon]

If that is incoherent too you, you may need to brush on your reading skills.

Ok, so the answer is no, you don't.

 

[cpgrad08]

Ok, so the answer is no, you don't.

No real need too, I have answer you question before and all you do is rant about why the government needs to enforce your fascist beliefs.

 

[Crimefree]

Which is completely and utterly besides the point. The point was, any political activity is an attempt to "control citizens", so unless you're an anarchist, "controlling citizens" isn't bad.

Hmm lets see Stalin, Mao..... that seems like really bad advice. All governments are inherently bad as they are willing to pursue what gains them more power over citizens unless held in check. The only way that can be done is with exposure of a free press. That much is OBVIOUS yet you seem to want to ignore the function of a free press.

Which is the point. In the current system, the press rules by this mechanism. It would be better if the press were deprived of this power over the state.

Give an example of this working in citizens favour.

 

[Paleocon]

All governments are inherently bad

So you're an anarchist?

Give an example of this working in citizens favour.

Pressocracy allows anything to be made law, if pushed by the press. Abortion, gay marriage, the list of evils foisted on society by the free press goes on and on.

 

[TurtleDude]

So you're an anarchist?



Pressocracy allows anything to be made law, if pushed by the press. Abortion, gay marriage, the list of evils foisted on society by the free press goes on and on.

governments are necessary evils. Sort of like Colonoscopies and root canals.

BTW why is it that you are the only poster I have seen on this forum who claims to be conservative who is a gun banner? Most anti abortion anti gay posters are seen by gun banners as being gun supporters. Its why so many leftwing groups that champion gay rights and abortion on demand tend to hate the NRA

 

[Paleocon]

BTW why is it that you are the only poster I have seen on this forum who claims to be conservative who is a gun banner? Most anti abortion anti gay posters are seen by gun banners as being gun supporters. Its why so many leftwing groups that champion gay rights and abortion on demand tend to hate the NRA

I'm not a gun banner. I don't mind loose gun laws, I just don't mind strict ones either.

The reason gun control is considered a left-wing position is primarily because (in my opinion) left-liberals tend to see the demographics most comfortable with guns (rural, southern, etc.) as being threats to their version of freedom. By the same token, right-liberals tend to see the government as a threat to their version of freedom, which is why they tend to want the common people to have the same weapons as the police.

Gun control is actually one of the issues I care least about, it's a prudential question that different communities can legitimately handle differently.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not a gun banner. I don't mind loose gun laws, I just don't mind strict ones either.

The reason gun control is considered a left-wing position is primarily because (in my opinion) left-liberals tend to see the demographics most comfortable with guns (rural, southern, etc.) as being threats to their version of freedom. By the same token, right-liberals tend to see the government as a threat to their version of freedom, which is why they tend to want the common people to have the same weapons as the police.

Gun control is actually one of the issues I care least about, it's a prudential question that different communities can legitimately handle differently.

there is some merit in your comment about left liberals

 

[Crimefree]

So you're an anarchist?.

Did I not tell you that the only currency of politics is power. Have you disproved that?

Pressocracy allows anything to be made law, if pushed by the press. Abortion, gay marriage, the list of evils foisted on society by the free press goes on and on

Give an example of this working in citizens favour.

Besides where is the working example. What you claim is pure conjecture. The loudest voice is not going to win if there is reasonable opposition to the claims. That is how gun control succeeds there is little opposition and politicians seek the popular and strongly supported view to win. It also just happens to be in politics agenda so will be supported by government from the most benign to the most rabid.

The press does not get to push anything it is in business to sell and if people knew better they would not be buying that crap. Fact is citizens have a duty to keep government on the right path. No government can be relied on to find it's own way. Self-interest, greed, corruption, graft bribes will soon change that. Who investigates government? Who keeps it on track?

 

[Paleocon]

Did I not tell you that the only currency of politics is power. Have you disproved that?

Are you still maintaining that government is inherently bad?

Give an example of this working in citizens favour.

Pressocracy does not work in anyone's ultimate favor, that was the point.

Besides where is the working example. What you claim is pure conjecture. The loudest voice is not going to win if there is reasonable opposition to the claims. That is how gun control succeeds there is little opposition and politicians seek the popular and strongly supported view to win. It also just happens to be in politics agenda so will be supported by government from the most benign to the most rabid.

The fact that so much crap has been foisted on us by the free press, that never happened (certainly not this quickly) in society's that lacked a free press, shows the evil of it.

 

[Crimefree]

Are you still maintaining that government is inherently bad?

Is uncontrolled power good or bad?

Pressocracy does not work in anyone's ultimate favor, that was the point.

Not so it only works if and only if the press are forced by sales to be balanced

The fact that so much crap has been foisted on us by the free press, that never happened (certainly not this quickly) in society's that lacked a free press, shows the evil of it.

Citizens are going to get as much as they allow. Same as they get the government they deserve.

Why must everything devolve to the nanny state where citizens are treated like helpless children. That is the quickest way to destroy society. Allow citizens to abdicate their duties and responsibilities.