Note to the U.S. Media: The Second Amendment Protects the First

Just sayin’.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

13 Responses to Note to the U.S. Media: The Second Amendment Protects the First

  1. avatarCrazed Java says:

    So what? The media’s hero signed the NDAA.

    The press doesn’t care so long as they continue to have legal precedent to protect them from maligning individuals and organizations due to hastily reporting erroneous facts. The rest of us don’t need free speech, just professional journalists.

    Not that I’m bitter or anything.

  2. avatarHal says:

    The “press” (I use the term loosely) will never be able to understand just how true that statement is, Robert. To do so would be more than just an admission of culpability and error; it would mean accepting that the social constructs they assume are stable and invincible might one day disintegrate around them. They are not psychologically prepared to accept that truth anymore than they are physically capable of surviving it when that day comes.

  3. avatarPascal says:

    Does the media really care? They don’t care. The media is no longer neutral and no longer plays the watch dog. They care only about ratings.

    The media has picks a political party and then writes stories to support that poltical party. They support the agenda of the party they support. This is why you can say this XYZ paper is Democratic or Liberal and this ABC paper is Republican or Conservative.

    They are just talking heads for the most part. Local media is more interested about what is happening on the police scanner so they can fly the bloody shirt than what is really happening in politics. They often interview one side without equal representation from the otherside. The local nightly news is simply “news readers” not reporters — even the local investigators care more about helping the old lady get her $25 from FGH company that actually investigating curruption in local or state governments — there is no more real investigative reporting because they may turn up something on the party they support.

    Hollywood gets its own special soapbox to pitch its liberal ideals and has swanky parties for the Democrates. They are by extension the propoganda machine for the Democrates and sadly people take their word as truth. Why we give celeberties who do nothing but play make believe and live in an insular world so much credit and importance is beyond me. Maybe TV does kill brain cells afterall. All the best movie nominations are joke and Hollywood has its own politics which has nothing to do with good movies.

    Sadly, much of the US is either mentally lazy or just plain dumb — more people know about what was on TMZ than what is happening in their own town. They believe whatever they hear in the news, watch on TV or in Movies and believe it is real without question — critical thinking and being cynical has been lost. This is how actual convicted criminals are able to be elected into various offices.

    No, the media will continue on as the propoganda machine that they are and little will happen….until it does….and by then it will be all too late.

    Many in the media believe you can kill the 2a and everything will just be fine. None of these supposed smart people ever bother to look OR report on Mexico. I always find it hilarious that ABCNews and other can find some obscure story of suffering in some far away niche of the earth, but report nothing about the 50K+ dead in Mexico or F&F. Why? It does not support their political agenda.

  4. avatarKirk says:

    The dispiriting thing is not the threat of a Hitler or Stalin, but that fellow citizens are demanding a dictatorship.

    If we lose one Right, we lose them all: http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/35-politics/440-hitler-gun-control-godwin-s-law-and-america-today

  5. avatarRoll says:

    For some reason the media and a lot of people think you can pick and choose what laws in the Constitution you need to follow. ALL OF IT APPLIES, I WONT INFRINGE ON YOUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH; DONT INFRINGE ON MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

  6. avatarChuckN says:

    A quick point to ponder, way back when Al Gore first
    invented the internet, someone posted on a philosophy
    forum “If we interpreted the 2nd Amendment as
    liberally as the 1st,we’d all have nuclear warheads by now”.
    Bring up a few court cases reenforcing the 1A and this
    statement doesn’t seem quite so absurd.

    However, the irony in all the rhetoric and debates going
    on right now is that the pro civil rights crowd don’t
    actively stifle talk of their opponents, regardless of how
    moronic and short sighted. Most of us realize that to curb
    free speech will lose the fight for freedom. It’s just sad
    that many in the media can’t or won’t understand this.

  7. avatarRalph says:

    Why would anyone need the First Amendment? Selling out is a lot easier and far more profitable.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Why need the 1stAm? Because it sets a floor under the selling-out price. Not a high one, but a floor.

  8. avatarInBox485 says:

    Just sayin?

    Look. The media does not rely on the 1st amendment. They frankly would be fine without it, and would probably prefer it not exist. The MSM has been effectively state run media for well over a decade, and has been leaning that way for even longer. There are only a few media conglomerates left, and they are all 99% aligned with each other, and they all do and say what the government and their corporate holders tell them to – nothing more, nothing less.

    The 1st amendment was not put in place so that 3 mega outlets could play butt puppets for a fascist state. It was put there so that when the government crossed the line, people could call them on it and tell the state to shove it if they object.

  9. avatarLeo338 says:

    I wish we could send the MSM to Mexico. Let them try their bias BS over there and see how long they last.

  10. avatar16V says:

    North of 80% of the media (print,tv,radio) is controlled by less than 10 companies. Not 20 years ago, there were hundreds of independent outlets in each of those segments, now there are a mere handful that run them all.

    The suggestion that there is anything but a profit motive at work is naivte at its most pure.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.